Python 1.6 The balanced language

[Manuel Gutierrez Algaba]

On Sat, 02 , Suchandra Thapa <ssthapa at harper.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>>If you think about it. python is rather "functional" (typeless)
>
>    Functional languages are usually defined by the lack of state in 
>the code.  In other words, you can not or are heavily discouraged from
>modifying the values of variables.  However, the most widely used 
>functional languages (Haskell and ML) have very strong type systems and
>are more demanding about types than languages like c/c++ and java.  For 
>example in ML, every statement has a type and each branch of an if/else caluse
>needs to have the same type.

For me functional language equals to LISP, common LISP. The issue
about types was from start a matter of size of data in memory. Then
mathematicians came in and they saw it was nasty, so they founded
theories on it.

Probably , Haskell and ML have got infested with that plague. 

I see functional as "flow", while OO as "matter". The duality
energy(flow)-matter rules in physical world and IT. Types could be
the size of quanta, which is the less interesting part of the story.

As long as a "language let the data flow" (without blocking in
a struct or object) the language behaves in a functional manner. 
Types seems stupid attempts to give shape to a liquid, to a flow.
It's the same if the "pipe" is rounded or square, the liquid/flow
adapts to it, but you have bad times when joining different pipes. 

--- 
MGA