Gabriel Sechan wrote:
Completely and totally disagree. State does not cause problems- state is usually the *solution* to problems. The problem comes from not encapsulating state correctly. The fact that functional programming languages make state and side effects so difficult to use are one of the reasons they have completely failed.
State is normally stored on the stack in a functional language. The difference is that it is managed in a way where it doesn't get out of control. I don't think they have totally failed at all. I think hardware is just now catching up to them and they are getting over the bias that people developed for them (meaning Lisp) after the AI bubble burst. If it were a failed concept I don't think MS would be about to introduce a language based on the idea.
There's a reason why the most common design in electrical engineering is the state machine- its simple, it works well, and it turns hard to impossible problems into easily solved ones.
Not sure what this has to do with functional programming. -- Tracy R Reed Read my blog at http://ultraviolet.org Key fingerprint = D4A8 4860 535C ABF8 BA97 25A6 F4F2 1829 9615 02AD Non-GPG signed mail gets read only if I can find it among the spam. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
