undefined | Better HN

0 pointsww52012y ago0 comments

Following that logic, OO is an orthogonal attribute to functional. Both of them can define functions, and thus OO is functional.

0 comments

TheZenPsycho12y ago

First of all, that's not what "functional" means.

Second, OO is an orthogonal attribute to functional.

Third, your argument commits a formal fallacy of this form:

All cats have whiskers

Cats can have stripes

Tony has stripes

therefore tony is a cat.

---The possibility of an attribute in X, and Y containing that attribute does not imply that Y is an X.

the point is that whether something is declarative has no bearing on whether it is functional or not. It's an irrelevant point to bring up. Whether something is OO is equally irrelevant. That is what "orthogonal" means. I would go on to define for you "functional" "declarative", "formal fallacy" "logic", but this seems like a bottomless rabbit hole. I can only hope you'll try and find out what these words actually mean yourself.

ww520OP12y ago

Ok. I misread what you wrote in my haste and misunderstood what you said. You can ignore my reply to your original comment.

However, my original point was addressing the claim in the blog that functional and declarative are equivalent in that functional has aspect of declarative. And since Excel is declarative, it's functional. I was basically saying that's not the case.

While declarative and functional can be orthogonal, and can both live in a language is an interesting but separate topic that is not really related to the original comment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse