Re: OO versus RDB

From: S Perryman <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:11:51 +0100
Message-ID: <e8l4pc$f5f$>

"Marshall" <> wrote in message

> 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.

We already have that in Lisp et al.

> 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. :-)

You can't really hate the difference between specification and implementation.

But they could live with imperative impls (which will probably be the exception
rather than the rule) .

You would get a beating though if those imperative impls have side effects. :-)

Steven Perryman Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 10:11:51 CEST

Original text of this message