On 11/15/11 1:33 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-11-15 10:16, Walter Bright wrote:
But whatever color one's shed is painted, it's pretty clear that D
supports an unusually large number of paradigms for a programming
language. It doesn't start from an idea that "everything is an object".
I agree with that.
How does this agreement...
According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages
Most languages are multi-paradigm.
Smalltalk: concurrent, declarative, event-driven, object-oriented,
reflective
Java: generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective
Go: concurrent, imperative
Haskell: functional, generic, lazy evaluation
... go with this? I mean if the purpose is to argue petty details, sure.
But "concurrent" or "reflective" are hardly paradigms, Java does not
allow one to write a free function (which stands in the way of it being
imperative), and in Haskell "functional" and "lazy evaluation" are not
options, they're _always on_.
Andrei
