Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too

Re:Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too by jeremyjh on Friday November 02, 2012 @08:28AM (#4732283)

I don't see much use in a definition of "functional language" that includes nearly every computer language. We already have a term for that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too by markokocic on Friday November 02, 2012 @11:05AM (#4732951)

I agree that "nearly every computer language" can be considered functional, as "nearly every computer language" can be considered imperative.

What I do not agree is when "functional programmers" claim that language is not "functional" just because it is not "pure functional" or Haskel alike.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too by Avshalom on Friday November 02, 2012 @09:15AM (#4732454)

well it's primary use seems to be providing a moving goal post for the functional side during the occasional OO vs Functional skirmishes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too by Evbn on Friday November 02, 2012 @11:13AM (#4732992)

That is required for parity with the OO side. Cf. Alan Kay on OO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hey, C Is a Functional Language Too by Avshalom on Friday November 02, 2012 @11:44AM (#4733144)

quite. Smalltalk is OO and Haskell is Functional are about the only (currently) accepted facts about the definitions of OO and Functional.

[ Parent | on HN ]