In the PL community, functional definitely means no side-effects
Assuming PL == "programming language", you overgeneralize. That is one thing functional means. Much like "OO" can mean "using objects for polymorphism", and usually does, but may not. It can also mean "all types descended from a single parent type," but often does not.
Most code I run into sees a function that takes a closure as basically a loop, which is perfectly readable
Yup, that's actually how Ruby does most iteration.
And yeah, lambda soup is a pain in the ass. Ruby is interesting because it has little enough in common with most of its predecessor languages that its fans are really still figuring out how to write it, stylistically. So "Ruby style" is all over the map, and still evolving fairly rapidly for a language of its age.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 04:17 pm (UTC)Assuming PL == "programming language", you overgeneralize. That is one thing functional means. Much like "OO" can mean "using objects for polymorphism", and usually does, but may not. It can also mean "all types descended from a single parent type," but often does not.
Most code I run into sees a function that takes a closure as basically a loop, which is perfectly readable
Yup, that's actually how Ruby does most iteration.
And yeah, lambda soup is a pain in the ass. Ruby is interesting because it has little enough in common with most of its predecessor languages that its fans are really still figuring out how to write it, stylistically. So "Ruby style" is all over the map, and still evolving fairly rapidly for a language of its age.