Re: OO versus RDB

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news: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.

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. :-)

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