Comments on: A problem of language http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/ Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:19:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David R. MacIver » Blog Archive » Axioms, definitions and agreement http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/comment-page-1/#comment-935 David R. MacIver » Blog Archive » Axioms, definitions and agreement Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:50:09 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=526#comment-935 [...] while ago I posted A Problem of Language, a response to an article claiming that Scala was not a functional language. This isn’t an [...] [...] while ago I posted A Problem of Language, a response to an article claiming that Scala was not a functional language. This isn’t an [...]

]]> By: links for 2009-05-18 « pabloidz http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/comment-page-1/#comment-840 links for 2009-05-18 « pabloidz Mon, 18 May 2009 12:02:58 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=526#comment-840 [...] A problem of language David R. MacIver (tags: programming scala languages) [...] [...] A problem of language David R. MacIver (tags: programming scala languages) [...]

]]> By: david http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/comment-page-1/#comment-838 david Sun, 17 May 2009 13:57:26 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=526#comment-838 Actually, I *will* add a follow up comment as to why I'm not willing to take up your challenge. The point I am arguing is that Robert's statement "Scala is not a functional programming language" is not well defined, because "functional programming language" is not well defined. I am not arguing that Scala *is* a functional programming language. I'm not even sure the term has a useful interpretation. The statement "C is not an object oriented language" is similarly ill defined, and as such is probably hard to have a useful discussion about. Robert's implicit point, which is not at all what he wrote, is that functional programming in Scala is more painful than it needs to be. I don't entirely disagree with that. However had that been what he actually written, I wouldn't have bothered getting involved. Similarly, if someone wants to argue that object orientation in C is fun and easy, they're welcome to. But I'm going to look at them funny and then go play elsewhere. :-) Actually, I *will* add a follow up comment as to why I’m not willing to take up your challenge.

The point I am arguing is that Robert’s statement “Scala is not a functional programming language” is not well defined, because “functional programming language” is not well defined. I am not arguing that Scala *is* a functional programming language. I’m not even sure the term has a useful interpretation. The statement “C is not an object oriented language” is similarly ill defined, and as such is probably hard to have a useful discussion about.

Robert’s implicit point, which is not at all what he wrote, is that functional programming in Scala is more painful than it needs to be. I don’t entirely disagree with that. However had that been what he actually written, I wouldn’t have bothered getting involved. Similarly, if someone wants to argue that object orientation in C is fun and easy, they’re welcome to. But I’m going to look at them funny and then go play elsewhere. :-)

]]> By: david http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/comment-page-1/#comment-837 david Sat, 16 May 2009 19:20:27 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=526#comment-837 I could. But I'm not going to. As I said up front, I'm not interested in language wars. I'm interested in not letting people perpetrate bad arguments. I could. But I’m not going to. As I said up front, I’m not interested in language wars. I’m interested in not letting people perpetrate bad arguments.

]]> By: Brian Hurt http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/comment-page-1/#comment-836 Brian Hurt Sat, 16 May 2009 19:16:56 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=526#comment-836 I'd go farther: functional programming is programming in the lambda calculus- generally with some syntactic sugar and optimizations (you can implement integers in the lambda calculus, but they aren't very efficient), but you're not that far removed from the lambda calculus. So this leads to various sorts of standard "features", like functions as first class objects, currying, and immutability. A functional programming language is then one whose primary or main way of programming is in the functional style (you can program procedurally in Java, I comment). Note that it's not that other forms of programming aren't allowed, even required, for some tasks (like IO), but again, this isn't different for OO languages (consider Java.Math). Now, let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. I contend that C is an OO programming language. Oh, sure, doing OO in C is a little bit clunky and a little bit error prone, but really, you don't need to use weird languages like Java, Python, or Ruby to do OO. For those rare instances when you need to do OO. You can start your rebuttle to this statement with a clear and concise definition of what is an "Object Oriented Language". I’d go farther: functional programming is programming in the lambda calculus- generally with some syntactic sugar and optimizations (you can implement integers in the lambda calculus, but they aren’t very efficient), but you’re not that far removed from the lambda calculus. So this leads to various sorts of standard “features”, like functions as first class objects, currying, and immutability. A functional programming language is then one whose primary or main way of programming is in the functional style (you can program procedurally in Java, I comment). Note that it’s not that other forms of programming aren’t allowed, even required, for some tasks (like IO), but again, this isn’t different for OO languages (consider Java.Math).

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. I contend that C is an OO programming language. Oh, sure, doing OO in C is a little bit clunky and a little bit error prone, but really, you don’t need to use weird languages like Java, Python, or Ruby to do OO. For those rare instances when you need to do OO. You can start your rebuttle to this statement with a clear and concise definition of what is an “Object Oriented Language”.

]]>