Why functional Python matters
bdesth at removethis.free.fr
Thu Apr 17 15:56:35 CEST 2003
Michael Hudson wrote:
> laotseu <bdesth at removethis.free.fr> writes:
>>Paul Foley wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:49:37 +0000, laotseu wrote:
>>>>Even for OO programmers, functionnal features in Python are IMHO a
>>>>great plus, and BTW functionnal and OO paradigm does not have to
>>>>conflict (that would be functionnal vs imperative and object vs
>>>>procedural). CLOS is one of the great system objects out here, and
>>>>it's been implemented on top of a functionnal language,
>>>Oh yes? Which functional language would that be?
>>CLOS means Common Lisp Object System.
> Paul knows that :-)
He does. Some may not...
> I'd wager the point he was making is that Common
> Lisp isn't "really" a functional programming language...
Ho yes ? Why ? Because it doesn't enforce a strict functionnal
programming style ? In this case, Python is not "really" an object
oriented language !-)
AFAIK, Common Lisp support all the features that make the definition of
a functionnal language, so it *is* a functionnal language.
> Ocaml would be a better example, I'd have thought.
Let's say another example...
More information about the Python-list