Personal attacks are against site rules on HN. You are clearly across the line here. Moderators ban people for repeated violations, so if you want to continue here, you should stop posting abuse.
You can do better, then. Read nendroids latest reply to me, and help them understand that it's the "use of statements" that makes a language imperative, not the "modification of state."
I won't be responding, and they seem to think they're quite the expert in this sort of thing.
"In computer science, imperative programming is a programming paradigm that uses statements that change a program's state."
The above quote is ripped straight out of wikipedia's definition of imperative programming showing that what I said wasn't a misunderstanding but an official definition.
The definition of imperative programming must include mutation otherwise it's isomorphic to functional programming. Because functional programming is simply statements without mutation.
Case in point, This guy turned what was just fact checking into something personal. See, it's not about being civil. That's just the way people like to think they are. The reality is most people can't accept being wrong and they can't accept opinions they disagree with and the irony is everyone believes they're above this base behavior.
"In computer science, imperative programming is a programming paradigm that uses statements that change a program's state."
You will see from the quotation above. The very act of changing state is an imperative style by definition. The purpose of mutable state is for it to change. So mutable state = imperative instructions.
>You don't have to listen to me, but you should seek out a second opinion from a competent person who can get through to you.
I'll throw that advice back at you. But you don't need to find that person. I'm right here in front of you telling you how it is.
>Everything I said in my last post is basic, well-understood computing knowledge. If you want me to disagree with it, you need to find yourself a competent computer scientist to aid you in framing your ideas in a way that is comprehensible with respect to the subject matter.
Yeah but you didn't account for the practical parts of computing. The theoretical parts often deal with machines that can't be realized in reality. It's pretty much common sense. How do you represent a function call without mutable state? How can you have a machine do an algebraic operation without mutable state? The very act of holding that information in state requires a state change meaning to even load a lambda machine with a program requires an imperative instruction.
We're also in a corner of computer science that isn't formally well defined. A language can be formally defined as pure but there's no formal theory for systems design and how the system overall influences the content of a pure SQL string in Haskell.
I define a haskell sql string to have syntactically correct SQL. The external requirements of my database are forcing me to define a string this way, is that a side effect? There's no formal rules in literature so it's just raw talking points... you won't be able to find an official source stating who's right or who's wrong.
