Skip to main content
22 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 26, 2016 at 21:52 review Close votes
Oct 31, 2016 at 3:01
Oct 26, 2016 at 21:31 history protected gnat
Jun 29, 2014 at 13:57 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/483247984025829377
Jun 20, 2014 at 22:05 answer added user40980 timeline score: 1
Jun 20, 2014 at 2:45 comment added Jesse Millikan I need a cat that does calculations.
Jun 20, 2014 at 0:39 answer added Jon Purdy timeline score: 0
Jun 19, 2014 at 7:20 comment added slebetman Also, you'll find as you learn functional languages, in functional programming object-oriented is treated as a tool, like regular expressions for example. Something you can use if you like but you don't have to. In some languages like lisp and tcl and forth OO is not a feature built-in to the language but a library that you can use (or you can even write your own OO if you feel brave). So problems that naturally have an OO solution can be solved using OO in most functional languages. People just don't treat OO as a religion.
Jun 19, 2014 at 7:17 comment added slebetman A really good mental model, if you have experience using unix-like systems (or the powershell in modern Windows) is shell one-liners. They're not exactly the same since shell pipes is technically flow-based programming instead of functional but they have the same "feel" as a programmer.
Jun 18, 2014 at 21:15 comment added David K The "real-world" model is often given as a motivation for object-oriented programming. I think it is an approach you should eventually outgrow, because objects in OOP should not always correspond to real-world objects, and even when they do, the correspondence is often incomplete; for example, the "is-a" relationships are not always the same. On the other hand, once you say that you want a model or metaphor for a programming language based on something in the "real world", I think you have essentially restricted yourself to this limited form of OOP.
Jun 18, 2014 at 20:56 answer added KTys timeline score: -5
Jun 18, 2014 at 19:19 comment added Guido Anselmi Interesting question. With my current small knowledge of, and little experience programming in, "functional programming," I cannot meaningfully answer that question. If I were to hazzard a guess, I would say both.
Jun 18, 2014 at 17:44 answer added M. Lanza timeline score: 16
Jun 18, 2014 at 17:11 review Close votes
Jun 20, 2014 at 21:12
Jun 18, 2014 at 17:09 comment added acelent Which concrete meaning of "functional programming" are you referring to, "no side-effects/declarative" or "first-class functions/function composition"? Or both?
Jun 18, 2014 at 16:48 history edited gnat CC BY-SA 3.0
typo corrected
Jun 18, 2014 at 15:57 answer added Jimmy Hoffa timeline score: 3
Jun 18, 2014 at 15:21 vote accept Guido Anselmi
Jun 18, 2014 at 15:05 answer added bstamour timeline score: 32
Jun 18, 2014 at 15:04 history edited Guido Anselmi CC BY-SA 3.0
Clarified question further
Jun 18, 2014 at 15:00 answer added Caleb timeline score: 19
Jun 18, 2014 at 14:59 answer added Doval timeline score: 2
Jun 18, 2014 at 14:54 history asked Guido Anselmi CC BY-SA 3.0