Category talk:Programming paradigm/Functional: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(My recommendation.) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page is self-contradictory and illogical; the first bullet does not in fact follow from the given definition. And examples are given later of functional programming mechanisms and languages that do allow for state change. I think more attention needs to be given up front to the distinction between the purist FP viewpoint and the more pragmatic viewpoint of languages such as Lisp that *allow* FP programming without requiring it. At minimum, the first bullet should say "desirable" rather than "possible", but I'd prefer a more explicit distinction between the strong and weak FP approaches (or should we call them "strong" and "gradual" to avoid biasing the question? :-). --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
This page is self-contradictory and illogical; the first bullet does not in fact follow from the given definition. And examples are given later of functional programming mechanisms and languages that do allow for state change. I think more attention needs to be given up front to the distinction between the purist FP viewpoint and the more pragmatic viewpoint of languages such as Lisp that *allow* FP programming without requiring it. At minimum, the first bullet should say "desirable" rather than "possible", but I'd prefer a more explicit distinction between the strong and weak FP approaches (or should we call them "strong" and "gradual" to avoid biasing the question? :-). --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
: I tend to think purist declarations are false advertising, but the reasons for that bounce near discussion of Hegel and Turing-completeness. This page should probably describe common properties of the paradigm, and use subcategories for common groupings of support/behavior of those properties. That will tie in well with Semantic Mediawiki, which uses categories to define classes and derivations. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
: I tend to think purist declarations are false advertising, but the reasons for that bounce near discussion of Hegel and Turing-completeness. This page should probably describe common properties of the paradigm, and use subcategories for common groupings of support/behavior of those properties. That will tie in well with Semantic Mediawiki, which uses categories to define classes and derivations. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: Better? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:03, 1 January 2011
This page is self-contradictory and illogical; the first bullet does not in fact follow from the given definition. And examples are given later of functional programming mechanisms and languages that do allow for state change. I think more attention needs to be given up front to the distinction between the purist FP viewpoint and the more pragmatic viewpoint of languages such as Lisp that *allow* FP programming without requiring it. At minimum, the first bullet should say "desirable" rather than "possible", but I'd prefer a more explicit distinction between the strong and weak FP approaches (or should we call them "strong" and "gradual" to avoid biasing the question? :-). --TimToady 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to think purist declarations are false advertising, but the reasons for that bounce near discussion of Hegel and Turing-completeness. This page should probably describe common properties of the paradigm, and use subcategories for common groupings of support/behavior of those properties. That will tie in well with Semantic Mediawiki, which uses categories to define classes and derivations. --Michael Mol 21:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Better? --Rdm 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)