Re: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

Actually I seem to remember that there is no real and fundamental difference between imperative and functional programming and that they are actually "two sides of the same coin".

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Comment on Re: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The first lambda language to go mainstream ? by morgon (Priest) on Aug 11, 2010 at 20:43 UTC
there is no real and fundamental difference between imperative and functional programming "two sides of the same coin" What would count for you as a "real and fundamental difference"? The logical programming paradigm (e.g. Prolog) for you is probably then the 3rd side of the same coin... Of course all programming paradigms are equivalent in the sense that you can have turing-complete languages for all of them but to equate equivalence with "no fundamental difference" is not giving any new insights for me. I am sorry but I probably don't get your point.	[reply]
Re^3: The first lambda language to go mainstream ? by CountZero (Bishop) on Aug 11, 2010 at 22:23 UTC
What I meant was that one can "translate" any functional program into an imperative program and vice versa, hence they are the "same" or "equivalent". CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]