James Iry wrote: > On Feb 13, 6:10 am, Robert Fischer <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Why does it have to be Clojure *or* Scala? While Clojure no doubt has >> theoretical purity on its >> side, > > Clojure doesn't have any theoretical purity. A theoretician will tell > you that it's an impure functional language in that you can have > arbitrary side effects in any function including mutation and IO. > > What Clojure does have is a stronger practical emphasis on > immutability. In Scala you can make things mutable about as easily as > you can in Java. In Clojure you have to jump through an extra hoop or > two. But I wrote a post somewhere once on how easy it would be for an > end user to create a library for mutable variables that would be just > as easy to use as Scheme variables (Scheme being a Lisp where every > variable is mutable whether you want it to be or not). >
You're right. I was running on a less-strict definition of "theoretical purity" than you are. I was using it to mean "structured so as to be closer to the theoretical functional model in practice". ~~ Robert Fischer. Grails Training http://GroovyMag.com/training Smokejumper Consulting http://SmokejumperIT.com Enfranchised Mind Blog http://EnfranchisedMind.com/blog Check out my book, "Grails Persistence with GORM and GSQL"! http://www.smokejumperit.com/redirect.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
