Timeline for How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2013 at 4:58 | vote | accept | dan | ||
| Jan 30, 2013 at 23:19 | answer | added | Ingo | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 30, 2013 at 21:56 | answer | added | Sean McSomething | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 30, 2013 at 21:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 30, 2013 at 22:11 | |||||
| Jan 30, 2013 at 19:09 | answer | added | David Clark | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 15:50 | comment | added | SK-logic | @sepp2k, ok, I see. But still, a very complex and well-layered system of data structures and processing abstractions can be built on top of nothing but functional decomposition for nearly pure lambda calculus - via simulating the modules behaviour. No need for the OO abstractions at all. | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 13:59 | history | edited | dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2012 at 13:51 | history | edited | dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 927 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2012 at 13:24 | history | edited | dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2012 at 12:29 | comment | added | sepp2k | @SK-logic All McConnell said was that "functional decomposition alone" does not provide the same means of abstraction as OOP, which seems a pretty safe statement to me. Nowhere does he say that FP languages don't have means of abstractions as powerful as OOP. In fact he doesn't mention FP languages at all. That's just the OP's interpretation. | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 11:39 | answer | added | Maglob | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 11:38 | comment | added | SK-logic | Clearly McConnel's knowledge in the modern functional data type systems and high order first class modules is somewhat patchy. His statement is utterly nonsense, since we've got the first class modules and functors (see SML), type classes (see Haskell). It's just another example of how OO way of thinking is more a religion than a respectful design methodology. And, by the way, where did you get this thing about the concurrency? Most of the functional programmers do not care at all about the parallelism. | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 10:43 | answer | added | Tikhon Jelvis | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 10:24 | comment | added | Fabio Fracassi | As many have stated in the answers, Functional decomposition and Functional programming are two different beasts. So conclusion that "this seems to pretty much a challenge to functional programming" is plainly wrong, it has nothing to do with it. | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 7:52 | answer | added | Joonas Pulakka | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 5:33 | answer | added | mikera | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 5:01 | answer | added | WuHoUnited | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 3:36 | comment | added | mattnz | +1 despite the question has been framed rather antagonistically, it's a good question. | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 3:26 | answer | added | duyt | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 3:20 | answer | added | sepp2k | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jan 12, 2012 at 3:02 | history | asked | dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |