Am still checking very elementary basic functional language tutorials like:
The interests in these is not so much programming as it is the imagination of programing or the abstracts of programing, or indeed – imagining all these..
Without an intent to dis anyone, am checking:
main = putStrLn “Hello, World!”
It seems like a functionalist statement rather than a functional one because it focuses on the function while ignoring the object? ie the object being
putStrLn?
Based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29
where:
object is a location in memory having a value and possibly referenced by an identifier. An object can be a variable, a data structure, or a function. In class-based object-oriented programming paradigm, “object” refers to a particular instance of a class where the object can be a combination of variables, functions, and data structures. In relational database management, an object can be a table or column, or an association between data and a database entity (such as relating a person’s age to a specific person).
—
though from that info i bumbped into:
—
So am thinking of functional programming from an art point of view. If functional reveals something object oriented covers – ie the higher level functions, then functional seems to cover objects it contains, elements that in themselves are structures of data and instructions/functions, no? (with the idea that functional is interesting by treating all as data..)
Also, though need to show sometime how and why am thinking this, functional seems to masks itself from operations. From the links between the bits of data that make it flexible enough to call ab data different from (a)(b) data- ie allow this to Operate differently and then Function, do a different activity, from one another.
ie ab does different to (a)(b)