Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha)

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Sun, 21 Sep 2014 14:28:14 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2014-09-11)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-15)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2014-09-20)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-21)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 14:28:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: 14-09-016 14-09-017
Keywords: OOP
Posted-Date: 23 Sep 2014 21:25:27 EDT

On 2014-09-21, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> ...
> So SML is an imperative language and a functional language then.
> These days one tends to avoid that, because with mutable state, you
> don't get referential transparency, and without referential
> transparency, you miss out on some benefits of functional languages;
> but in earlier times people did not know how to live without mutable
> state, so they had mutable state in functional languages.


Those people haven't gone away, and in fact there is more of them.
So the functional languages that dropped mutable state simply
dropped users. :)


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.