[squeak-dev] Smalltalk and functional programming
mhaupt at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 13:27:50 UTC 2010
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Rob Withers <reefedjib at gmail.com> wrote:
> Smalltalk is a dynamic fuctional object-oriented language.
you forgot "imperative" and, hey, since you can implement Prolog in
it, "logic". ;-) Sorry for the sarcasm, but Turing completeness just
bites. (Yes, it's a bottom argument, but this kind of question just
calls for it.)
If someone'd ask me, I'd respond that Smalltalk is IMHO not a
functional language. What is the primary means of abstraction at work
in Smalltalk? Not functions, right?
The other way around, would you agree that, uh, Haskell is an
object-oriented language because you can somehow emulate objects and
state using monads?
More information about the Squeak-dev