[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why?

David Leimbach leimy2k at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 12:04:48 EST 2009

My understanding of functional programming is that nearly everything is a
function, and that evaluation of those functions is how programs are
written.  Functional programming languages treat functions as first class
values, allowing them to be passed to other functions and returned from

In this sense Scheme qualifies as a functional language.  However Scheme
will fail your definition because you're saying it must be effect free,
which is not the case with Scheme.

It becomes difficult to have a discussion when the fundamental terms are not
agreed upon :-)


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:15 AM, John D. Earle <JohnDEarle at cox.net> wrote:

>  To elaborate there is another language that is also a functional
> language. I won't mention the name so as not to offend anyone. It too is
> effect free, that is what makes it functional and it is a functional
> language in the true sense of the term, but it is not effect free in the
> sense that Haskell is effect free. This other language is effect free in
> every practical sense whereas Haskell is effect free in a strict sense.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20091210/acae4bf0/attachment.html

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list