Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by binarykeats on Monday January 21, 2008 @11:20AM
(#101605)
The clarity, or lack thereof, of the way various languages define classes has nothing whatsoever to do with the utility of functional programming. I don't think these examples could have missed the point more.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by Tichy on Monday January 21, 2008 @11:58AM
(#101632)
Still, it would be nice to have some examples of pretty functional code for real world applications (like a blog).
I've started learning Scheme again recently, and some things are pure bliss, but others are horrible. Maybe I am spoiled by Java, but for some things I really can't imagine how to properly code them without objects. As an example for something ugly, look at the hashtables in MzScheme.
Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by boredguy8 on Monday January 21, 2008 @12:07PM
(#101639)
Something like (Implementing a blog in Common Lisp)[http://dirtyhack.org/vetler/docs/cl-webapp-intro/part-1/]?
Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by binarykeats on Monday January 21, 2008 @12:50PM
(#101666)
I just noticed that that's where the guy pulled his example from! I also noticed how badly it supports his argument. That definition of the blog-post class also gives you accessors and a constructor, which would be more verbose to define in Java or C++.
*Edited for clarity
Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by binarykeats on Monday January 21, 2008 @12:18PM
(#101647)