Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail
From: Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:21:00 -0500
Organization: Service de news de lacave.net
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <20110404102004.2fda5d35@fractal>
References: <BANLkTimKuriDuVMQRFSTs_=7W_iyKMr4kQ@mail.gmail.com> <6aeb13eb26b5656ca2247601ed369bcf@ruby-forum.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bristol.highgroove.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1301908884 54978 65.111.164.187 (4 Apr 2011 09:21:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@lacave.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <6aeb13eb26b5656ca2247601ed369bcf@ruby-forum.com>
X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway
X-Mail-Count: 380895
X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk
X-Rubymirror: Yes
X-Ruby-Talk: <20110404102004.2fda5d35@fractal>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:2246

> When you consider the merits of functional languages, I believe you
> should take into account not only the elegance with which you can
> express what you want to do, or how amenable it is to eg parallel
> processing. You should also consider whether it strikes a better
> balance between such issues and accessibility. Does all your
> terseness and 'elegance' give you a justifiable advantage over
> something simpler which could be more easily handled by a person of
> less capability?

Your argument is fap: programming isn't an abstract philosophy.
Meaningful debate is impossible without evidence.

Please provide specific examples.  Show us something you don't
understand.

Cheers
Johnny