Grafting Functional Support on Top of an Imperative Language

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Christopher Wright (dhasenan at gmail.com)'s article
> Jarrod wrote:
> > I guess what I'm trying to say is functional languages are good at what
> > they do because they are functional languages. D is not a functional
> > language, and as such trying to use it as one is probably just going to
> > end up painful. If you want D to work like a functional language, turn it
> > into a functional language Walter. Force all data to be immutable by
> > default, all functions to be pure unless they prove otherwise, add native
> > support for lists and tuples and add a bunch of list manipulation
> > functions..
> > Heck, why not make a functional dialect of D? Call it "D flat" and have
> > it compile alongside D or something. No need to mix the two.
> >
> > The current imperative/OO style of D is brilliant, fun to use, flexible
> > and just packed with lovely features. Please don't go killing it on me by
> > trying to make it an ugly jack of all trades.
> Agreed. People are mixing languages a decent amount these days; I'd like
> to see an official, supported way to integrate, say, Erlang with D, so
> that I can have Erlang parallelize stuff and D do the actual work.

Same here.  I have no interest in "one language to rule them all."  I prefer
a specialized tool for the task at hand.


Sean