There's no such thing as a functional or OO language

[zenten]

There isn't even such a thing as an imperitive language, except for some (usually quite old) languages that are imperative only.

What you have is different languages supporting different features, which people arbitrarily fit into some box. The real problem is this is often the language creators doing it.

[quintopia]

Translation:

There are no languages that emphasize application of functions over changes in state, nor are there languages that facilitate and encourage the use of encapsulation, inheritance, modularity, and polymorphism, nor are there languages whose primary focus is on the change over time of some global state.

Rebuttal: Just because high-level programming languages don't tend to limit their users to one of the above paradigms, the above descriptions collectively describe most programming languages. No one is trying to put anything in a box, but only trying to encourage a certain manner of thinking.

[Fixman]

Its all a lie. Open your eyes!

[<insert witty name>]

Well ... partially:

Take for example Java/C#: Of course, I can do functional (not object oriented) Programming with it. But the language slaps me in the face, every time I do so, by making me write

Code: Select all

public class Whatever{
   public static int doSomething(int arg){
      //...
   }
}


instead of

Code: Select all


int doSomething(int arg){
   //...
}


So the language doesn't force me to use a certain paradigm. But it constantly nags until I resign and do it the language's way.


Another example would be Python: Of course you can program in Python like you would in Java. But then Python would just be a crippled language that doesn't even have Interfaces or Variable Declarations. The real fun begins when you use Python the Python Way!

[DubioserKerl]

That is why people invented differen programming languages.

E.g. why would you do functional programming in JAVA when you could use HASKELL ?

DK

[evilbeanfiend]

There isn't even such a thing as an imperitive language, except for some (usually quite old) languages that are imperative only.

What you have is different languages supporting different features, which people arbitrarily fit into some box. The real problem is this is often the language creators doing it.

essentially your argument is that all taxonomy is flawed and :. pointless?

yes it is flawed, as with any abstraction you lose information by simplifying the raw data to fit into a model. but this doesn't mean that fitting things into boxes in general is a bad idea, it eases thought and communication about the 90% of cases that fit the boxes at the cost of worsening it for the 10% that don't fit well. specifically for the classification of languages it helps us communicate which languages and techniques are suitable for different tasks.

[crp]

NO LANGUAGES FUNCTION!

Lol but yeah I once took this really crappy scripting language a friend made and spent like 3 hours making a module that accomplished OO capability(which isn't actually that hard with just a few pointers) and realized wow, any language can do anything