Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a bastard child...
1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old it almost predates electricity...) 2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The two seem fundamentally incompatible: - FP could be defined as "programming without mutable state". - In OOP we have the definition: "An object has identity, state and behaviour". That a state has an *identity* more or less demands *mutable* state. So OOP is programming with mutable state inside objects, and FP is programming without mutable state. Hmm... 3. I know very little about Erlang, but the Haskell wiki claims it is not pure functional. (This agrees with the small amount of Erlang I do know.) http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Comparison_of_functional_programming_lang...