Does functional programming work?

[retard]

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhgvqk$8cj$2 at digitalmars.com...
>>> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>>>
>>> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
>> 
>> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is
>> completely in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all
>> programming paradigms, for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't
>> pull a Java or (worse yet) a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything*
>> into the paradigm.
> 
> I agree, the old programming-language-as-religion problem. I first ran
> into this when I read the original Pascal book, and became enamored with
> it. I tried doing a modest project in Pascal using a pure Pascal
> compiler.
> 
> 80% went smoothly, the other 20% spent wrestling with the nanny language
> tsk-tsking consumed nearly 100% of the time spend on the project. I just
> couldn't get things that had to be done, done, as the language would
> shut off all the avenues.
> 
> When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so
> soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula
> II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.

The programming-language-as-religion problem exists only in your 
imagination. I fail to see Pascal as a religion. I don't know what the 
pure Pascal compiler you're talking about is, but ordinary Pascal is just 
another procedural systems programming language like C. It has a bit 
different syntax ("begin end" vs "{}" and so on), somewhat different 
rules for some default data types, but it's more or less C wrapped in a 
syntactic mask.

Switching from Pascal to C is like swiching from Christianity to Islam. 
Both are strict monotheistic mainstream religions. C developed into C++. 
The Pascal equivalent is Object Pascal. Also those are pretty similar.

TurboPascal = borland's brand for their pascal compiler - ever heard of 
Turbo C? From Pascal user's point of view: "I never got on the later 
bandwagons of Objective C, C++, Turbo C, etc. Never even looked at them."

The languages are no religions per se. Some single paradigm languages are 
single paradigm theoretic experiments for a good reason. E.g. how else 
would you prove things like Curry-Howard correspondence? (Go ahead - do 
it in D..) Those language were not meant to be practical programming 
languages. It just happens to be the case that some people managed to 
build a real world compiler for them. But of course that's possible - the 
languages mostrly are Turing complete etc.