Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Marshall" <marshall.spight@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: OO versus RDB
Date: 6 Jul 2006 08:33:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <1152200036.255450.235950@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <1150610674.844373.102610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
   <AXflg.1382$DI2.362@trnddc05>
   <4495f31a$0$31650$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <y3_lg.6853$Za5.6538@trnddc04>
   <44988592$0$31642$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <A8jmg.4449$V55.2662@trndny01>
   <449b2eb2$0$31648$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <dcing.830$Bb.717@trndny01>
   <449dd059$0$31656$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <2kxng.7938$Wl.4566@trnddc01>
   <449ecfdd$0$31642$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <lnbog.14947$pv2.12108@trndny05>
   <44a1a679$0$31642$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <rPxog.6621$D03.3031@trndny03>
   <44a2eb4c$0$31652$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <ebUog.12687$Tk.8048@trnddc08>
   <44a42097$0$31656$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
   <J_xpg.22221$US2.19941@trndny03>
   <1152186211.639700.279770@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <e8j36r$fhm$1@nntp.aioe.org>
   <1152199241.437243.166570@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.4.95.46
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1152200043 7529 127.0.0.1 (6 Jul 2006 15:34:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:34:03 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1152199241.437243.166570@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.4.95.46;
   posting-account=s2xCFw0AAAD2mIwYYHAqjdsecwG0axmW
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.object:141755 comp.databases.theory:43104

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