3 ms·
I disagree that '"Purely functional" is redundant'. You can have a functional language that still uses mutable state. Lisps are a good example. Pure functiona
by eigenrick 12y ago
I disagree that '"Purely functional" is redundant'. You can have a functional language that still uses mutable state. Lisps are a good example. Pure functional implies no mutable state. Pure functional is the only way to safely achieve laziness. Which seems to be the author's thesis.
- dllthomas 12y agoWell, from the parent poster's position, Lisps would not be "functional" - they'd be "pseudo" or "mostly" functional or something. Obviously this disagrees with common usage, but the expressed motivation "mutation disagrees with 'function' in mathematics" isn't crazy. I do think it's insufficient, however, in the face of common usage given that we've collectively chosen that "purely functional" should mean that.