Sorry Robert, but your argument (the original blog post) has been burned to a crisp. I fully agree with the sentiments of noted Scala apologists James Iry and David MacIver as expressed here:
http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/erlang-is-not-functional.html http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/ Scala can call itself functional without having to apologise for it. On May 16, 5:32 am, Andres Almiray <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm here some Groovy code: > > def foo = { what, who -> println "$who loves the $what" } > foo( "Groovy", "Dick" ) // prints "Dick loves the Groovy" > def bar = foo.curry("Scala") > bar( "Robert" ) // prints "Robert loves the Scala" > > Did I plan for foo to be curried in the first place? no I did not, > that is the point Robert made in his post regarding currying and > syntax. > > On May 15, 7:45 pm, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Currying is when you write a function in such a way as it can be > > partially applied, so in languages like haskell, it "curries" all > > functions by default then (and I guess for other ML derivatives??). > > > On May 16, 9:40 am, Andres Almiray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, Scala supports a terser syntax for currying as you have shown, > > > but you're missing Robert's point: OCaml (as well as other languages > > > like Groovy) support currying any function, regardless of how it was > > > defined. In the case of the Scala option you depicted > > > _you_have_to_know_ in advance you'd like to curry that function. > > > > So, while other languages support curry "on the go" not so in Scala, > > > you have to take a moment to think what you want to accomplish, which > > > is *not* a bad idea to start with. > > > > On May 15, 2:45 am, Viktor Klang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry man, seems that you've basically misinformed. > > > > > Define a top-level function: > > > > > object f extends ((Int) => Int) { def apply(x:Int) = x + 1 } > > > > > Currying: > > > > > def f(x:Int)(y:Int) = x + y > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Robert Fischer < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If Dick is going to keep going on about how functional and > > > > > mathematical > > > > > Scala is, and how that's so > > > > > great, maybe he should check out OCaml/F#? > > > > > > I've just posted to my blog about how Scala is *not* a functional > > > > > language. > > > > > Which is not to say > > > > > it's a bad language -- it's just not a functional language. > > > > > >http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/scala-not-functional/ > > > > > > ~~ Robert Fischer. > > > > > Grails Training http://GroovyMag.com/training > > > > > Smokejumper Consultinghttp://SmokejumperIT.com > > > > > Enfranchised Mind Bloghttp://EnfranchisedMind.com/blog > > > > > > Check out my book, "Grails Persistence with GORM and GSQL"! > > > > >http://www.smokejumperit.com/redirect.html > > > > > -- > > > > Viktor Klang > > > > Rockstar Developer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
