On Friday, May 31, 2013 at 1:06:29 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:12:22 -0700, rusi wrote: > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > > >> Wait a minute! Isn't the most nature way of doing/thinking "generating > >> 9x9 multiplication table" two nested loop? > > > > Thats like saying that the most natur(al) way of using a car is to > > attach a horse to it. > >[...] > > Likewise in the world of programming, 90% of programmers think > > imperative/OO programming is natural while functional programming is > > strange. Just wait 10 years and see if things are not drastically > > different! > > It won't be. Functional programming goes back to Lisp, which is nearly as > old as Fortran and older than Cobol. There have been many decades for > functional languages to become mainstream, but they've never quite done > it. There's no reason to think that the next decade will see a change to > this.
Interesting point... With interesting (counter)examples: http://blog.languager.org/2016/01/how-long.html [With apologies for necroposting] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list