3 ms·
Seems most of the talk is actually about Lisps. In my mind, functional languages and Lisp are two separate things. Lisps can be functional, but most of them a
by soc88 14y ago
Seems most of the talk is actually about Lisps.
In my mind, functional languages and Lisp are two separate things.
Lisps can be functional, but most of them are not.
- olliesaunders 14y agoSounds like your thinking of /purely/ functional programming. Although none of these terms have precise definitions so there’s not really any point arguing over them.
- soc88 14y agoNot really. Functional programming for me has a feeling of a mathematically sound foundation: This means a statically typed language with a powerful type-system and type inference. Immutability/effect system are a big plus. Broad range of data-structures and a decent object system are nice, too.
- Retric 14y agoI have no idea why you think statically typed languages have anything to do with Functional programming.
- soc88 14y agoThat's my second sentence.
- olliesaunders 14y agoLooks like everyone ignored that bit where I said there was no point arguing over it :)
- anamax 14y ago> Functional programming for me has a feeling of a mathematically sound foundation: This means a statically typed language with a powerful type-system and type inference. Mathematical soundness does not require type inference. It's unclear whether it requires static typing. And, it can easily get by with almost no type-system.
- soc88 14y agoThat's why I wrote "for me".