Talk:Functional programming

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Functional programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aquabu.com/2008/02/16/fibonacci-sequence-recursion-in-erlang
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629183752/http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html to http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any thoughts on this? 
"Removed the inaccurate use of idempotent. Having the same function output for a value x is injectivity, not idempotency. The article declared that calling f twice with the same value x produces f(x) each time. This is just a claim on uniqueness. This is equivalent to saying that: for x, y in D and function f: D -> co(D), that if f(x) = f(y), then x=y. This is precisely injectivity. If functional languages acted as f(f(x)) = f(x), then for any value x, a function of x would be identical to its..."
  Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Idempotent]] or [[injective]]? 

message: Coding styles are different opinionated approaches to the same problem.  For example, the Haskell section of Coding Styles effectively illustrates different coding styles.  Implementing the same code in different languages is not an example of different coding styles, as the different languages may use the same coding style.
Languages that only feature one coding style should be removed from this section (or have another coding style added), as they have nothing to compare/contrast and therefore only confuse and detract from the actually beneficial sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.80.20 (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This section should be cleaned-up. No point in listing non-functional languages. Sure, any imperative language can have `fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)` defined, but that's not the point, or else this list will grow indefinitely. bungalo (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It provides no value at all. As it currently exists, it simply encourages people to add their own favorite languages to the list. I will remove the section. --Nullzero (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding Styles section mostly detracts 

message: Functional Programming is such a core aspect of R and how R is different.  I read this article and thought it was a little sad that there was not example for R.  Can I add one?
The simple example would be this:
As the syntax implies there is no non-functional version of the basic function in R.  R simply assumes.
Historically R as Hadley writes in advance R (https://adv-r.hadley.nz/), R actually started out as a pure functional programming that by the necessity of statistics became impure in order to add objects and classes that were mutable.
mlane --2600:1700:F840:1E40:6DE5:E5C1:F398:6CCC (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anyone mind if I add an example for R? 

message: > Functional programming is also key to some languages that have found success in specific domains, like JavaScript in the Web.
This is rather opinionated and poorly reflected in the current state of the art in Javscript. Javascript tends to be massively used as OOP and not functional despite some trends going on. \\  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:5D3:2650:51F0:F3D2:7D33:13D8 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel like FP terminology is not complex when you use it to compute. It only becomes complex when, ironically, you use it to do category theory, with all complexity coming from category theory. Just my 2 cents. --Nullzero (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The last paragraph of the lead section is way too heavy on citations. Do we really need a citation from 1987 on how to program a text editor? What is that doing there anyway (ref name="hartheimer1987")? Honestly, there should be no citations in a lead section, unless something is so controversial it causes a knee-jerk reaction from newbies to add a citation needed tag without first checking the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Please get rid of most of them, the article will be easier to deal with.  -- GreenC 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section