From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b3f07bd1ad77d438
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:16:57 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: The state of functional programming
References: 
 <2adc4d8d-210e-429c-8188-9b1e99c2718e@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <2adc4d8d-210e-429c-8188-9b1e99c2718e@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4c5057f9$0$7655$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2010 18:16:57 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: cb7f4ba8.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=9XX6H[C1`?OI7\_^6>c20Jic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgBc1a@<l>Zj3Bnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jMR;[iM]>bS]G
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12634
Date: 2010-07-28T18:16:57+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 28.07.10 17:24, J.s wrote:

> Functional programming languages express ideas at a higher level and
> allow users to focus on the challenge of problem solving instead of
> the process of writing code. A programming language like F# provides a
> �tool bag� of functions that users can pick from to solve their
> problem.   Functional programming includes concepts such as
> immutability to reduce dependencies between components, generics to
> express solutions that work over many different kinds of data, and
> functions as values to make it easy to abstract units of a solution
> into reusable pieces."
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes, and Grady Booch has said a few things against functional
programming (hype) very recently no less substantiated than the above
collection of claims.

I haven't met anyone who thinks that knowing functional programming style,
in particular familiarity with the consequences of no mutable values
isn't a valuable experience.  As is the experience of so called fusions,
and of mutable variables in functional programming languages (really
functional any longer?): the inevitable consequence of trying to
make a functional program meet the requirements of predictable
SPACE and TIME complexity.

To distinguish the above quote about F# from language marketing,
consider the questions:

"What is an idea at a higher level?"
 (explaining "idea" and "height")

"When one assembles functions a la Hughes (point free style),
how is the thinking process different from that performed
by the OO-programmer assembling classes and their protocols?"

"Regarding OO vs functional, is one good without the other?"
(which one?)


Georg