4 ms·
Eh, I think that's a distinction we could make, but it's not clear to me it's useful, and FPLs themselves are (definitionally?) shaped by FP.
by dllthomas 4y ago
Eh, I think that's a distinction we could make, but it's not clear to me it's useful, and FPLs themselves are (definitionally?) shaped by FP.
- fulafel 4y agoIt's true it's arguable. But if we start calling the languages that adopt FPL pioneered features "heavily influenced by FP" we end up putting a lot of languages in that set, like Java, Python etc for having GC and closures. So in order to use that as a distinguishing feature I think it's warranted to make the distinction.