>> From an OOP perspective, lambdas are just syntactic sugar for a special form of objects.
Indeed Smalltalk - a pure OOP language - had `Block` objects fifty years ago.
>> I'm convinced that imperative programming will endure alongside functional code, because being stateful is how the real world works, and most programs have to repeatedly interact with the real world over the course of their execution.
That, and also who wants to wrestle with monad transformers to make a stateful computation work when they have to fix a bug in production ASAP?
> Indeed Smalltalk - a pure OOP language - had `Block` objects fifty years ago.
Although in the original Smalltalk-80, blocks were not full closures, so it didn't support all the things you would expect to be able to do with a lambda.
"The major commercial Smalltalk implementations of the 1990’s all corrected these problems and developed various techniques for efficiently implementing blocks."
Indeed Smalltalk - a pure OOP language - had `Block` objects fifty years ago.
>> I'm convinced that imperative programming will endure alongside functional code, because being stateful is how the real world works, and most programs have to repeatedly interact with the real world over the course of their execution.
That, and also who wants to wrestle with monad transformers to make a stateful computation work when they have to fix a bug in production ASAP?