imperative

I'm reading 'Functional Programming' by Tomas Petricek & Jon Skeet and I understand the difference between declarative & imperative programming. What I was wondering is how are the primitive operators & functions implemented, are declarative languages constructed from imperative operators & functions. Cheers AWC If I understand your question correctly, I don't think that is a hard and fast rule. For example, you can use a functional language like Lisp, to create an interpreter for itself. In this case, the implementation details are implemented in a functional manner (because Lisp is a

I've got the following problem: I have a tree of objects of different classes where an action in the child class invalidates the parent. In imperative languages, it is trivial to do. For example, in Java: public class A { private List<B> m_children = new LinkedList<B>(); private boolean m_valid = true; public void invalidate() { m_valid = false; } public void addChild(B child) { m_children.add(child); child.m_parent = this; } } public class B { public A m_parent = null; private int m_data = 0; public void setData(int data) { m_data = 0; m_parent.invalidate(); } } public class Main { public

I've been searching the web for an implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes in scheme and although I came up with a lot of content, none of them seemed to have made it like I need it to be done. The problem is most algorithms either use a static end or use iteration. This paired with my lack of knowledge of the language led me to ask all of you for help. I need an implementation of the Sieve that takes in one argument (number to Sieve until), uses only recursion and has a list of "cons" of a number with a #t (true) or #f (false). So essentially the algorithm would go as such: Make list from

Functional programming .. is like classic ( Mark Twain's type ). While reading another articles about SICP, where people are talking about the great impact closures had on there thinking, i got reminded of this, which i read ages ago Closures are poor man's objects Objects are poor man's closure ( Can't recall exact source but it was programmers rosetta stone, or zen of programming, or tau of programming ... google has become so crowded that can't go to original source ) So co-programmers ... What is your take ... are closure something that you were always missing .. or just some syntactic