Category talk:Programming paradigm/Functional: Difference between revisions

My recommendation.
(carping about a self-contradictory FP page)
 
(My recommendation.)
Line 1:
This page is self-contradictory and illogical; the first bullet does not in fact follow from the given definition. And examples are given later of functional programming mechanisms and languages that do allow for state change. I think more attention needs to be given up front to the distinction between the purist FP viewpoint and the more pragmatic viewpoint of languages such as Lisp that *allow* FP programming without requiring it. At minimum, the first bullet should say "desirable" rather than "possible", but I'd prefer a more explicit distinction between the strong and weak FP approaches (or should we call them "strong" and "gradual" to avoid biasing the question? :-). --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
: I tend to think purist declarations are false advertising, but the reasons for that bounce near discussion of Hegel and Turing-completeness. This page should probably describe common properties of the paradigm, and use subcategories for common groupings of support/behavior of those properties. That will tie in well with Semantic Mediawiki, which uses categories to define classes and derivations. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)