2014-05-05 12:05 GMT+02:00 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org>: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Cecil Westerhof <cldwester...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2014-05-04 23:40 GMT+02:00 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org>: > > > >> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > >> > I heard the stand that functional programming made it difficult to > >> > write secure programs. I do not know enough of functional > >> > programming yet to determine the value of a statement like this. > >> > What is the take here about it? > >> > >> It would be interesting to hear WHY functional programming would yield > >> less secure programs. What would then be the paradigm that results in > >> most security? Imperative, logical? > > > > > > Modular, the suggestion being that that could not be done in a functional > > language. > > That is indeed an interesting statement. I would LOVE to hear why use > of functional languages would prevent modularity. Especially since so > many VERY knowledgeable people claim that functional programming > yields more composable software. I'm having a hard time reconciling > that something can be composable but not modular. >
Well I was already thinking it was FUD, but thought it good to check. I am now sure I can ignore the statements. -- Cecil Westerhof -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
