On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Tracy Harms <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, when I look at the most important qualities of "functional > programming", and the sort of programming that is routinely identified > as the alternative, it looks to me that J is among the very best > functional programming languages. This I agree. I find more similarity in Haskell and J than difference in the function composition area. Though not sure how monad(the Haskell term, not J/APL term) would be applicable to J. Sure the heavy use of symbols(1 or 2 characters) is a bit intimidating but that is no different than learning another language(not programming). > Since people tend to imagine that things such as tail recursion > optimization (and the things Bill listed) are vital to FP, I propose > that we will be better off if we can explain how these things are but > one collection of means, not ends. > I would say only a very small percentage of people care that much about TCO or whether the language is pure. Most modern language is a blend of OO, Imperative and FP. Though I doubt more people would turn to J even if you can convince them it is very FP style friendly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
