Re^8: How do I go from procedural to object oriented programming?

There is a lot of non-pure functional languages that NEED to be able to distinguish between referentially transparent functions and other functions and they are not going to refer to the later in the artist-formerly-known-as-prince way. Sure, there are languages in which all functions are referentially transparent, but that's a different thing. The pascal style distinction is common and well respected.

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Comment on Re^8: How do I go from procedural to object oriented programming?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: How do I go from procedural to object oriented programming? by einhverfr (Friar) on Apr 21, 2015 at 15:10 UTC
I think the problem is that the mathematical definition of a function (for every x in a domain, there is exactly one value of f(x)) and the ordinary definition (the function of a lawn mower is that it cuts grass). But you are right that functional programming is limited to the former definition. That doesn't mean that function might have a different meaning in an imperative context.	[reply]
Re^9: How do I go from procedural to object oriented programming? by salva (Canon) on Apr 21, 2015 at 15:40 UTC
There is a lot of non-pure functional languages that NEED to be able to distinguish between referentially transparent functions and other functions and they are not going to refer to the later in the artist-formerly-known-as-prince way That makes sense. The pascal style distinction is common and well respected. Really? that's not my experience, but well, it may depend on where you move.	[reply]