undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavsm11y ago0 comments

> I think most of the advantages of FP languages (as they exist today)

You seem to be describing Haskell with that rather overgeneral (and incorrect) statement above. OCaml supports mutation and explicit sharing just fine, and is strict by default. As for the rest, as you get closer to needing manual resource control, it just gracefully devolves.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

denim_chicken11y ago· 2 in thread

I seem to be describing Haskell because Haskell is the epitome of an FP language. If FP is truly a self-contained practical, versatile paradigm by itself, then Haskell would exemplify this.

mercurial11y ago

There is no "true" definition of functional programming. You can, of course, make the argument that Haskell is the one true functional language, but this is not what is generally accepted (eg, OCaml or Erlang are usually considered functional languages - and most of these languages have strict semantics).

denim_chicken11y ago

All I'm saying is that if we plot languages on a spectrum, where one end corresponds to functional programming and the other to, say, imperative programming, then Haskell will be most closely to the FP end than any other practical language. Haskell embodies the most of the tenets of FP.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse