Why is smalltalk not a functional programming language?

programming-languages functional-programming oop smalltalk
OscarRyz picture OscarRyz · Aug 20, 2010 · Viewed 8.1k times · Source

With the renewed interest in functional programming languages, I've seen some similitudes between Smalltalk and FPL, namely closures ( BlockClosures in Smalltalk ) Yet, Smalltalk is not a FPL?

What would be needed to consider it as such?

Answer

missingfaktor picture missingfaktor · Aug 20, 2010

There's no accepted definition of functional programming language.

If you define functional language as the language that supports first class functions, then yes, Smalltalk *is* a functional language.

If you also consider the factors like support for immutability, algebraic data types, pattern matching, partial application etc then no, Smalltalk *is not* a functional language.

I'd encourage you to read the following related blog posts (and also the comments below them):

Related questions

How do functional programming languages work?

If functional programming languages cannot save any state, how do they do simple stuff like reading input from a user? How do they "store" the input (or store any data for that matter?) For example: how would this simple C …

Read More
Are FP and OO orthogonal?

I have heard this time and again, and I am trying to understand and validate the idea that FP and OO are orthogonal. First of all, what does it mean for 2 concepts to be orthogonal? FP encourages immutability and purity …

Read More
What is Haskell used for in the real world?

There is a lot of hype around Haskell, however, it is hard to get information on how it is used in the real world applications. What are the most popular projects / usages of Haskell and why it excels at solving …

Read More