machine code looks pretty much like the "essence of computing" to me, and that's about as far as you can get from functional programming. I think I would agree with you more if you meant the essence of computer "science". If I remember correctly there is, anyway, a theorem by Church and Turing that proves imperative and functional programming to be capability-equivalent. The argument is more about the superiority of functional programming in its benefits to software engineering and algorithm discovery by forcing rigour onto our mistake-prone brains.
>Since when functional programming is "radical"? It's the essence of computing.
It isn't representative of how processors work, unlike imperative programming. Even if the theory is there, the machine itself is imperative (most of the time), so there's a level of abstraction needed.
Though the theory could have started like that, the mechanisms are totally separated from the physical reality. In a field dominated by engineers (especially in a time where cycle counts mattered much more), that's what's going to happen.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
hcarvalhoalves|10 years ago
Since when functional programming is "radical"? It's the essence of computing.
What we're seeing are other languages going back to the basics, after a detour in the "imperative is easy to learn" and "OO is reusable" lands.
vegabook|10 years ago
rtpg|10 years ago
It isn't representative of how processors work, unlike imperative programming. Even if the theory is there, the machine itself is imperative (most of the time), so there's a level of abstraction needed.
Though the theory could have started like that, the mechanisms are totally separated from the physical reality. In a field dominated by engineers (especially in a time where cycle counts mattered much more), that's what's going to happen.