Here's what I did: I defined what a function is, then I described how a unix program fits the definition of what a function is...
In short a unix program with stdin as domain and stdout as a codomain is a function but a function is not necessarily a unix program.
I think what's actually going on is you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. You sort of just skimmed over it. I can't blame you, it is rather long and detailed...
But if you want to have a meaningful discussion you need to read it and ask questions about things you don't understand.
> > Unix piping is basically functional programming.
> Only in the same sense that all computing is Turing Machines or NAND gates.
Yes, you can map and analogize long enough until you reach a point where you find what you perceive to be equivalences.
However, what you've done at that point is rediscover that all these mechanisms are computational and thus at some level equivalent and transformable into each other, just like yoo can implement all of this with just NAND gates.
Here's what I did: I defined what a function is, then I described how a unix program fits the definition of what a function is...
In short a unix program with stdin as domain and stdout as a codomain is a function but a function is not necessarily a unix program.
I think what's actually going on is you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. You sort of just skimmed over it. I can't blame you, it is rather long and detailed...
But if you want to have a meaningful discussion you need to read it and ask questions about things you don't understand.