5 ms·

I've got 8 minutes til I need to catch the bus. The answer to your question hinges mainly on how you define components. In the Erlang language for example: It

I've got 8 minutes til I need to catch the bus. The answer to your question hinges mainly on how you define components. In the Erlang language for example: It is completely functional but threads actually become somewhat stateful and ultimately end up recreating some similar scenarios for OOP programmers. On top of that, functions themselves showcase an even higher amount of reusability at times especially in functional languages because of the prevalence of lists of things and tuples. This prevents an over abundance of duplicate implementations of the same thing that, even though their signatures are identical (or nearly so) can't interoperate because they haven't been specified as exactly the same. So language wide consistency is a big plus for some functional languages. Having said that no one tool is a golden hammer. OOP and Functional programming are just tools and there are others out there. Some not even based on Von Neumann architectures that are even more flexible than the ones we, Von Neumann proggies, are (think data flow architectures for example).

seiji 18y ago
A common misconception about erlang is its degree of functional-ness. It isn't completely functional. As Peyton-Jones says, a completely functional language will just sit there and make the computer run hot[1]. Erlang is a well thought out compromise between tying your hands by restricting side effects (the monad approach) and allowing a wide audience of people to be quickly productive. [1]: Changing the temperature of the environment can be considered a side effect thereby rendering the 100% functional language 99.999% functional.
nailer 18y ago
> Having said that no one tool is a golden hammer. Clearly you're inexperienced with golden hammer methodology, which provides both a mightier paradigm and a pleasantly horned helmet.

seiji 18y ago

A common misconception about erlang is its degree of functional-ness. It isn't completely functional. As Peyton-Jones says, a completely functional language will just sit there and make the computer run hot[1]. Erlang is a well thought out compromise between tying your hands by restricting side effects (the monad approach) and allowing a wide audience of people to be quickly productive. [1]: Changing the temperature of the environment can be considered a side effect thereby rendering the 100% functional language 99.999% functional.

nailer 18y ago

> Having said that no one tool is a golden hammer. Clearly you're inexperienced with golden hammer methodology, which provides both a mightier paradigm and a pleasantly horned helmet.