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: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:41:18 -0500 From: Jon Harrop Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.programming Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.programming Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:51:00 +0100 References: <0b6dnSIFZr9pAvXXnZ2dnUVZ8hSvnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-Qrt4ME39dJyfgvZ60TcmlTISpen/NK1/mwDtkj8AP3vvfR/URgLw5SUNSNHXfi/Dxuj9QP5b5SV0K4p!KHSZuO7GbFNhblN8J8yzWdRtXz/kabPp9lJXRXm1bGuqpuPdP/ExeiusGPWGGjDQnGnvcxpb/H3X!y+Yhkqlqns0EJBm9S2iqlprC X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:399 comp.lang.ada:7297 comp.programming:12007 Date: 2009-07-23T22:51:00+01:00 List-Id: Colin Paul Gloster wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Jon Harrop wrote: > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"Colin Paul Gloster wrote: | > |> No, it is not contrived. Unlike a functional language in which every| > |> so-called variable is actually constant... | > | | > |*Purely* functional, perhaps?" | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > > If something is not purely functional then it is not functional. If > something is not purely clean, then it is not clean. Sure, people do > describe something as being "cleaned" when not all dirt particles have > been banished from it, and people call languages which are not purely > functional "functional", but being called something and being that > something are different. In other words, you want to use a different definition of "functional" to almost everyone else. No problem, the Haskell community do it all the time. I just wanted to make that clear. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u