Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • Right, you can write the code which will produce same results. However you can't practically do object oriented programming in assembly. Thus if functional languages are something more than I can see, it would be impossible to use functional paradigm in imperative languages. Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 1:21
  • This is a Turing-tarpit argument. It is also wrong, depending on your definition of "translate". Sure, you can do functional programming in C, by implementing an interpreter for Haskell in C. But that's not what the OP means. I interpreted his question as "using a purely functional subset of an imperative language". Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 19:12
  • @JörgWMittag yes I'm asking if such subset natively exists, so that you can do it practically (without the need of writing interpreter/compiler). Commented Dec 11, 2014 at 19:31