|
== Letters between Beckus and Dijkstra ==
The section about Beckus delivering a Turing Award lecture about FP should also include the letters surrounding that period between Dijkstra & Beckus. https://medium.com/@acidflask/this-guys-arrogance-takes-your-breath-away-5b903624ca5f <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.6.170.230|144.6.170.230]] ([[User talk:144.6.170.230#top|talk]]) 09:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on [[Functional programming]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=804419999 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aquabu.com/2008/02/16/fibonacci-sequence-recursion-in-erlang
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629183752/http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html to http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
== [[Idempotent]] or [[injective]]? ==
Any thoughts on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_programming&diff=892619256&oldid=892561226 this]?
''"Removed the inaccurate use of idempotent. Having the same function output for a value x is injectivity, not idempotency. The article declared that calling f twice with the same value x produces f(x) each time. This is just a claim on uniqueness. This is equivalent to saying that: for x, y in D and function f: D -> co(D), that if f(x) = f(y), then x=y. This is precisely injectivity. If functional languages acted as f(f(x)) = f(x), then for any value x, a function of x would be identical to its..."''
{{ping|2600:1009:B112:79C8:75D8:597D:23FC:A3A4}} [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Andy Dingley}} it's neither. The article wants to say that if ''x'' ''f'' ''y'' and ''x'' ''f'' ''z'', then ''y'' = ''z''. That is, it satisfies the properties of [[Function (mathematics)|functions in mathematics]].
On the other hand:
* [[Idempotent]] means f(f(x)) = f(x).
* [[injective]] means if f(a) = f(b), then a = b. In the relational notation, if ''a'' ''f'' ''c'' and ''b'' ''f'' ''c'', then ''a'' = ''b''. Notice that this is in the other direction of the function properties I described above.
These two are irrelevent. So yes, this should be changed. --[[User:Nullzero|Nullzero]] ([[User talk:Nullzero|talk]]) 19:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
== Coding Styles section mostly detracts ==
I agree. I do not think that including these examples provide much value at all; there is already an example of imperative vs. functional programming at the top of the section. I don't even think the Haskell part should remain: I don't think that showing different coding styles is particularly relevant to an understanding of FP, and something like that would be better suited for a Haskell tutorial rather than an encyclopaedia article. I would like to remove the entire "Coding Styles" subsection if there are no objections. [[User:Quuxbazbarfoo|Quuxbazbarfoo]] ([[User talk:Quuxbazbarfoo|talk]]) 21:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:: Agreed. It provides no value at all. As it currently exists, it simply encourages people to add their own favorite languages to the list. I will remove the section. --[[User:Nullzero|Nullzero]] ([[User talk:Nullzero|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
== Would anyone mind if I add an example for R? ==
Functional Programming is such a core aspect of R and how R is different. I read this article and thought it was a little sad that there was not example for R. Can I add one?
The simple example would be this:
{{Syntaxhighlight|code=fibonacci <- function(n){
x = numeric(n)
x[1:2] = c(1,1)
for(i in 3:n)
x[i] = x[i-1] + x[i-2]
return(x)}
fibonacci(10)}}
As the syntax implies there is no non-functional version of the basic function in R. R simply assumes.
Historically R as Hadley writes in advance R (https://adv-r.hadley.nz/), R actually started out as a '''pure functional programming''' that by the necessity of statistics became impure in order to add objects and classes that were mutable.
mlane --[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F840:1E40:6DE5:E5C1:F398:6CCC|2600:1700:F840:1E40:6DE5:E5C1:F398:6CCC]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:F840:1E40:6DE5:E5C1:F398:6CCC|talk]]) 22:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
== Criticism section ==
| 