John BEPPU, at 12:50 -0700 on Sat, 31 Mar 2001, wrote:
> I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
> completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
not to worry... If anything, it might educate them. I
didn't really grok functional programming before I got
to experiment w/ some functional idioms in a perl context.
I also like "pure" for its great potential in perl poetry. ;-)
"not to worry"??? I don't think this attitude is useful for deciding how
to name thing. You don't decide things merely on the idea of "how things
should be"; you have to grasp what the average programmers is going to
think of it.
Just because one programming paradigm happens to name it "pure" doesn't
mean that name should be carried over to other paradigms. In a
functional-programming context, sure, "pure" might be a good name. But in
a non-functional context, the name has little meaning with regards to the
concept of "nosideeffects".
--
Frank Tobin http://www.uiuc.edu/~ftobin/
