> >>>>> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PRL> =item Functional Programming
>
> PRL> Just because Perl has a C<map> operator, this doesn't make it a
> PRL> functional programming language. Perl has always been squarely
> PRL> procedural, and so things like C<reduce> and C<curry> and other cookery
> PRL> terms are somewhat out of place; they can be far more easily and
> PRL> appropriately implemented as extension modules I<post hoc>. By all
> PRL> means, let's generalise the problem, and make it easier to define your
> PRL> own syntax, but let's not add the entirety of LISP and ML to the core.
> PRL> The CS types may love it, but I'm a programmer and I don't.
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:50:39PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I'm not quite buying into this.
I'm with Chaim on this one. One of the things I *love* about perl is
that it doesn't constrain me to a particular paradigm and moreover it
almost naturally supports other paradigms (like functional
programming). I'm always touting this aspect of Perl and often people
from other backgrounds (scheme, lisp, Java, etc.) are surprised and
delighted when perl lowers the barrier to their entry and
understanding.
That said, if perl starts looking more like lisp than perl, I'll be
here to yell bloody murder! along with Simon :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
