In which sense Joy is functional?
I am confused. I understand that the language Joy is regarded as a functional language. It also seems that is closer to Backus' FP than, say, Haskell.
The Joy FAQ (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/faq.html) states that it is functional because expressions are functions operating on a stack, and juxtaposition is function composition. That definition feels (to me) like cheating.
Could not one also define a language with assignments and call it "functional", intepreting expressions as pure functions operating on an environment?
I mean, every imperative language can be implemented with the State monad, and that doesn't make it functional (I think).
Perhaps my question makes no sense, and is just wordplay. I'd really like to know what you think.
Active forum topics
New forum topics