On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:59 am, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:50:39 PM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 01:11 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: >> > Simply put: pythonistas have no coherent/consistent sense of what python >> > values are. And the endless parameter-passing-nomenclature arguments are >> > just the fallout of that. >> >> This is not a dispute unique to the Python community. Similar arguments take >> place in the Java and Ruby communities, and I daresay many others. > > Well good to know we agree on this [I would add lisp to this list since its > the progenitor of this model] > > And it is a primary factor for the desirability of transcending the imperative > paradigm
This is completely unrelated to the imperative paradigm. You just said it yourself: the question of function calling conventions applies to functional languages like Lisp as well. It even applies to purely functional languages like Haskell: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/184586/devising-test-of-haskells-value-reference-semantics I especially love that one of the top-rated answers says that Haskell simultaneously: - doesn't have references; - therefore Haskell is call-by-value; - except that it actually has call-by-reference semantics; - except that it is actually call-by-name; - except that it is actually call-by-need. The imperative paradigm has nothing to do with this. -- Steve “Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
