Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
1–10 of 188 posts
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#2Yo, would be nice to have some functional programming language with decent syntax to program apple machines. Let's call it Dylan to honor the most recent winner of the Nobel prize for literature.
Just kidding. The bottomline of this page and talk is that Swift is still not functional. But you can do cool things with it.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#3Yo, would be nice to have some functional programming language with decent syntax to program apple machines. Let's call it Dylan to honor the most recent winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Just kidding. The bottomline of this page and talk is that Swift is still not functional. But you can do cool things with it.
I dunno; I think the bottom line of this page is that functional programming is a set of approaches for solving problems, and some of those approaches can be done in Swift.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#4Ask five programmers to define functional programming, get fifteen different answers.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#5Yo, would be nice to have some functional programming language with decent syntax to program apple machines. Let's call it Dylan to honor the most recent winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Just kidding. The bottomline of this page and talk is that Swift is still not functional. But you can do cool things with it.
I dunno; I think the bottom line of this page is that functional programming is a set of approaches for solving problems, and some of those approaches can be done in Swift.
Haven't read the article yet, but the problem I find with this attitude generally is that the constraints found in FP are what I find valuable, and what are usually missing from languages which support functional approaches.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#6Ask five programmers to define functional programming, get fifteen different answers.
Same thing can be said for object-oriented programming, unfortunately.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#7Ask five programmers to define functional programming, get fifteen different answers.
Most people would agree that in functional programming we can pass functions around as first class objects. What we disagree on is the definition of function.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno; I think the bottom line of this page is that functional programming is a set of approaches for solving problems, and some of those approaches can be done in Swift.
Haven't read the article yet, but the problem I find with this attitude generally is that the constraints found in FP are what I find valuable, and what are usually missing from languages which support functional approaches.
Well said. I can write exceedingly low defect code without folds. I can't do so with implicit IO everywhere, ad hoc polymorphism, and dynamic typing.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#9Ask five programmers to define functional programming, get fifteen different answers.
Most people would agree that in functional programming we can pass functions around as first class objects. What we disagree on is the definition of function.
That's just one aspect of functional programming. By that definition, almost any modern language is functional.
Re: Swift and the Legacy of Functional Programming
#10Ask five programmers to define functional programming, get fifteen different answers.
I always thought FP == pure functions. I guess not?