Pretentious bullshit like "Clojure is in some way related to functional programming" is a pedagogical scourge.
-
-
Replying to @curious_reader
@curious_reader The context is the continued idea that Clojure is somehow related to FP, even so ridiculous to be proposed for teaching!2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@curious_reader interested to learn rationale, and if there are parallels to Common Lisp and Scheme (or just Clojure specific?)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @claudionatoli
@claudionatoli@curious_reader Yes it's a tricky one. Lisp and Scheme have the redemption of not knowing any better at the time.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@claudionatoli@curious_reader So clojure must be neither functional nor a lisp, thank you I learned something today.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arrdem
@arrdem@claudionatoli@curious_reader Yeah exactly. Makes total sense.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @curious_reader
@curious_reader@arrdem@claudionatoli Mean is necessary. You see the non-sequitur? It's a learning opportunity as someone else's expense.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@arrdem@claudionatoli yes ok, basically my question was if functional programming is possible without types or single (uni-typed)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@curious_reader @arrdem @claudionatoli It's possible, but intractable and that is why you will *never* see it to any non-trivial extent.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.