Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by eVizitei on Monday January 21, 2008 @11:29AM
(#101609)
I think the author of this article may have missed the boat on functional programming languages. After all, a functional paradigm is not the same as an object-oriented paradigm, so if a functional language is a little verbose when dealing with objects I don't think that disqualifies it as a useful language.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:No future for functional programming in 2008
by binarykeats on Monday January 21, 2008 @11:49AM
(#101621)
The joke is that he implies the languages' FP orentation causes them to have clunky ways to define classes. Ruby is a good counter to that argument. It has one of the cleanest class-defining syntaxes out there. And you can actually write your own functions that behave like "attr_accessor", making your class definitions even more readable.
Guess how you do it? A combination of metaprogramming and closures.