Talk:Procedural programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:11, 27 October 2005

Revision as of 05:14, 27 October 2005

Line 23:

:[http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~nordland/ohaskell/ O'Haskell] is an example of a ''technically'' non-procedural OO language. The non-proceduralness is buried under a lot of syntactic sugar, but it's there. ML and Lisp are both functional languages where the functions can have side effects, which makes them distinct from mathematical functions. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::What are these side-effects? In Common LISP and other versions sure there are side-effects, and in fact there are many things which make Lisp actually imperative. However, in pure Lisp, which is a true functional language, then I can not think of any side-effects. When you use a subroutine to simply return a single value, then it is considered a function. The term function is not defined by what languages have made functions and then expanded to make something different than functions. It is a term in programming originatingoriginated from subroutines that are true functions, as in like mathematical functions. Programming languages on computers are no stronger than recursively enumerable langauges which can be definedenumerated according to recursive functions, which are highly "mathematical". Basically, I am saying every program could be written as a set of mathematical functions (it may be a huge list of them, but it is possible - you learn this in the study of formal languages). -has