Is Smalltalk a functional language ?

From: Michael Voss (michael.voss_at_lvrREMOVE.deCAPS)
Date: 05/28/04 

Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:33:35 +0200

>From a thread started in comp.lang.c

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
> "Michael Voss" <michael.voss@lvrREMOVE.deCAPS> wrote:
> >
> >Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
> >[...snip...]
> >> Smalltalk is a functional language.
> >
> >How do you define "functional language" ?
>
> I don't - others already did. If you're interested in this subject
> I suggest to Go Ogle for the comp.lang.functional FAQ - it contains
> a nice explanation of functional vs. procedural programming paradigms.

<COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC EXCEPT FOR C.L.F>
My Google search revealed nothing except that other people are searching the
c.l.f FAQ, too. Any hint where I could find them ?
</COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC EXCEPT FOR C.L.F>

> Ob the portion you snipped: While both C++ and Smalltalk are OO
> languages, the former is a mere procedural, the latter a mere
> functional language.

If a functional language is defined as:

--"The idea of functional languages is that functions are
--completely determined by their parameters. If you put
--the same parameters to a function, then you must get the
--same return values. So a function which does not take any
--parameters should always return the same result."
 (Christian Szegedy (szegedy@nospam.or.uni-bonn.de) in comp.lang.functional
at 2004-03-19 07:19:21 PST),

In my eyes and regarding the above definition, Smalltalk is not a functional
language.

Since I crossposted this to comp.lang.smalltalk and comp.lang.functional:
What do you think ? Is Smalltalk an object-oriented "mere functional"
language ?

Since this is completely off-topic for c.l.c and m.p.d.l.c, and my
newsreader does not support a proper followup-to (blush): Please followup to
comp.lang.smalltalk and comp.lang.functional. Please remove the C /
C#-groups.

Thanks,
Michael

Relevant Pages

  • Is Smalltalk a functional language ?
    ... > languages, the former is a mere procedural, the latter a mere ... If a functional language is defined as: ... In my eyes and regarding the above definition, Smalltalk is not a functional ... newsreader does not support a proper followup-to: ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: [OT] Re: C Syntax
    ... >> Smalltalk is a functional language. ... a nice explanation of functional vs. procedural programming paradigms. ... While both C++ and Smalltalk are OO ... welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: [OT] Re: C Syntax
    ... >> Smalltalk is a functional language. ... a nice explanation of functional vs. procedural programming paradigms. ... While both C++ and Smalltalk are OO ... welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)