Why functional Python matters

laotseu 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...

Laotseu





More information about the Python-list mailing list