Terry Hancock wrote: /a few statements which seem to be there - apparently - just for the sake of quarreling/
> The FP camp (apparently) wants to advance the claim that FP will *always* > reduce bugs. I find that very hard to believe. Good. Now go, and talk to some FP people before accusing them of being *so* sectarian. Your supposition that they claim that FP is always better is unjustified. Were I more aggressive, I would say: 'sheer nonsense'. I would not say - as you did - a 'ludicrous sophistry', because it is not ludicrous. Quite sad, in fact... Your further posting, about twists and perversion of functional programming makes me invite you to learn a bit more of FP. It won't harm you, and it might raise in your spirit the question why in thousands of educational establishment this programming style is considered good for beginners. I might agree that thousands of teachers are more stupid than you, but that they are all perverts, I believe not. Anyway. In a further posting you comment the "psychological" aspect of language choice in such a way: > I said this, because an earlier poster had *dismissed* mere > "psychological" reasons as unimportant, claiming that > functional programming was superior on "technical" grounds. 1. I never said that FP was technically superior. 2. I never dismissed psychological reasons as unimportant. Read it again, please. Please, stop putting in other people mouths fake arguments, just to have something to argue about, OK? FP appeals to many. Well, *why* people who jump into Python from other languages very often like functional constructs, and dislike the fact that destructive methods return nothing?... Jerzy Karczmarczuk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list