Re: Functional programming?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg92077] Re: Functional programming?*From*: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>*Date*: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:17:17 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <gat9oj$eie$1@smc.vnet.net>

Bill Rowe wrote: > > To me, using Mathematica without learning functional programing > is somewhat analogous to driving a sports car without learning > to use the higher gears. You can get from point A to point B in > a sports car using only first gear but clearly that isn't > efficient use of the sports car. Similarly, you can solve > problems with Mathematica using procedural programing but that > isn't efficient use of Mathematica. > This is true, but Stephen Wolfram did include all the procedural constructs as well, and I think he did this for a reason. There are certain messy real-world bits of data processing that are easier to code in procedural style. My point is simply that we should not condemn procedural programming to the point where users give up on problems that they could otherwise have solved using (say) While[...]. David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk