Talk:First-class function: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:04, 22 February 2010

Revision as of 17:50, 22 February 2010

Line 222:

Then there is the issue of "Active X" and so on. I'm not sure how you would do this in Linux, although I am aware that Linux/Uxix variants to support some kind of _popen (char *filename -- etc) method which allows an application to create a new process and communicate with it via a named pipe and thus incur no more essential performance penalty other than whatever mighg be associated with named pipes. Lots of things could be dynamically modified this way -- such as MPEG encoders, database engines, etc. The pipes in such cases can be used for streaming the otherwise computationally intensive data -- even to the point that it becomes imaginable to create applications that could be run for months or even years (I have seen Linux boxes with uptime over 1 year) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.116.237.73|67.116.237.73]] ([[User talk:67.116.237.73|talk]]) 08:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Functional languages must support first-class functions BY DESIGN (in language semantics itself),- not recursively/dynamically invoking compiler as in your example or not by doing some other metaprogramming stuff. Otherwise by using your logic we can conclude that ANY compiled language supports functional programming (or any other programming idiom, just by invoking compiler dynamically). Which will sound crazy [and leave language designers unemployed :) ], don`t you think ? So let`s face it - C/C++ was not designed as modern functional language, and it will stay as it is, unless ... will be re-designed by it`s designers :-)