Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by junke 3499 days ago
Take it from the other side: why would a language that allows to create higher-order functions/closures not be called functional?
2 comments
catnaroek 3499 days ago
Most languages only have higher-order procedures, not higher-order functions.

As for closures, well, closures are an implementation technique. Not distinguishing between language features and implementation techniques is a part of an established tradition that comes from Lisp, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

link
frankpf 3499 days ago
> Most languages only have higher-order procedures, not higher-order functions.

What do you mean by that?

link
catnaroek 3499 days ago
Functions have the following properties:

(0) A function maps every element of its domain to a unique element of its codomain.

(1) Functions don't exist in time, let alone change over time.

(2) Two functions with the same domain and codomain are equal if they map the same domain elements to the same codomain elements.

Since when do so-called “first-class functions” in most programming languages behave like this?

link
eridius 3499 days ago
Because that makes the term meaningless. You may as well ask "why don't we call any language that lets you do two actions in sequence 'procedural'?"
link
junke 3499 days ago
A term does not necessarily become meaningless when it applies to a lot of things. "Functional" might be a broad category after all, not the exclusive name of a subset of functional languages. And if your language allows different paradigms, it will be called "functional and imperative and object-oriented... ". At best, if a property is so common that most language have it, it can be assumed to be satisfied by default. As for "procedural", the definition on wikipedia is a little more precise and does not apply to all languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming.
link
kibwen 3499 days ago
That doesn't make the term meaningless, it just means that "functional programming" is a victim of its own success.
link
eridius 3499 days ago
If you can apply the term to every programming language in widespread use today[1], then yes, it is pretty useless. There is real value in having the term "functional programming" be meaningful and denote a certain class of languages; defining that as "any language with first-class function values" is too broad as to render the term meaningless.

[1] Even C has this with Apple's Blocks extension (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Block-ABI-Apple.html).

link