Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: "Nils M Holm" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 22 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-09-016@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1411193988 64604 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (20 Sep 2014 06:19:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: OOP, design, history, comment Posted-Date: 20 Sep 2014 02:19:48 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1382 Anton Ertl wrote: > Martin Ward writes: > > But Smalltalk, for which development started in 1969, was a very early > > functional object-oriented language. > > Smalltalk is an imperative language; e.g., it contains assignment and > its objects contain changeable state. What makes you think that > Smalltalk is functional? While I would agree that Smalltalk is not intended to be a functional language, I think the argument of assignment and mutable state is not valid. In "The Definition of Standard ML", Milner, et al describe ML as a functional language "in the sense that the full power of mathematical functions is present". IMO, this property is sufficient to classify a language as "functional". Even SML does have mutable state (references) and assignment, BTW. -- Nils M Holm < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g > www.t3x.org [Does that make python functional? -John]