On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Cecil Westerhof <cldwester...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-05-04 23:40 GMT+02:00 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org>: > >> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Cecil Westerhof wrote: >> > I heard the stand that functional programming made it difficult to >> > write secure programs. I do not know enough of functional >> > programming yet to determine the value of a statement like this. >> > What is the take here about it? >> >> It would be interesting to hear WHY functional programming would yield >> less secure programs. What would then be the paradigm that results in >> most security? Imperative, logical? > > > Modular, the suggestion being that that could not be done in a functional > language.
That is indeed an interesting statement. I would LOVE to hear why use of functional languages would prevent modularity. Especially since so many VERY knowledgeable people claim that functional programming yields more composable software. I'm having a hard time reconciling that something can be composable but not modular. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
