Re: OO versus RDB
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 6 Jul 2006 08:33:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1152200036.255450.235950_at_p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> I think what I would like to have is a hybrid language, that would
> allow me to implement a function with imperative techniques, permitting
> mutable data structures for building immutable objects, aka
> StringBuffer/String in Java, and a pure functional higher view. Does
> that sound sensible? Or stupid?
Date: 6 Jul 2006 08:33:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1152200036.255450.235950_at_p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Daniel Parker wrote:
>
> I think what I would like to have is a hybrid language, that would
> allow me to implement a function with imperative techniques, permitting
> mutable data structures for building immutable objects, aka
> StringBuffer/String in Java, and a pure functional higher view. Does
> that sound sensible? Or stupid?
Sounds exactly right. Functional by default, imperative when necessary.
It's also entirely possible (as I think you're implying) to have a
language
that allowed one to write a function that is "pure" (in that its
outputs
depend solely on its parameters) but whose implementation was
imperative. The functional guys *hate* it when I point this out. :-)
There might even be type system support for distinguishing pure functions.
Marshall Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 17:33:58 CEST