> But in practical programming with imperative languages, arbitrary side effects can't be disregarded, so they don't collapse into the functional paradigm.
I'm sorry to have to say this so bluntly, but I think you understand as well as I do that in a language such as C#, it is entirely possible to write large amounts of purely functional yet useful code, just as you would in Haskell. That's why it's possible in SICP to wait until Chapter 3 to introduce the special form set!. That is the issue I was concerned with.
> from a physical perspective
I already mentioned that this is not the perspective that interests me. I don't care at all about the physical substrate for computation.
Thanks for the paper. I might take a look at it, although I've already been given a good tip elsewhere with map theory. I'm not convinced by the claim that properties and relations occur in natural language but sets supposedly do not.
The last paragraph isn't very helpful either. I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom here, but we don't need to hash it out. This isn't a conversation I'm enjoying.
I'm sorry to have to say this so bluntly, but I think you understand as well as I do that in a language such as C#, it is entirely possible to write large amounts of purely functional yet useful code, just as you would in Haskell. That's why it's possible in SICP to wait until Chapter 3 to introduce the special form set!. That is the issue I was concerned with.
> from a physical perspective
I already mentioned that this is not the perspective that interests me. I don't care at all about the physical substrate for computation.
Thanks for the paper. I might take a look at it, although I've already been given a good tip elsewhere with map theory. I'm not convinced by the claim that properties and relations occur in natural language but sets supposedly do not.
The last paragraph isn't very helpful either. I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom here, but we don't need to hash it out. This isn't a conversation I'm enjoying.