Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Functional programming/archive1

Functional programming

Self-nom. This article seems stable, deals with a complex topic in an accessible fashion, is well cited, and generally seems to follow the guidelines for "beautiful writing". LotLE×talk 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Still listed as "Articles with unsourced statements". --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not currently. I just fixed the one lingering "citation needed" by removing a superfluous claim. LotLE×talk 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I am not knowledgable about the subject, but reviewed the links earlier and saw that they correlate with the data provided. I am impressed with the flow of the article which makes it relatively easy, especially for novices such as myself, to understand what is being presented. I might recommend trying to eliminate the multiple paragraph style by combining them if possible, but this may not even be necessary. I sent this through spell checker and it came out fine, one or two glitches. A pretty tight and well written article, overall.--MONGO 04:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Jeronimo 10:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article needs a good explanation of what functional programming is, with examples of how it looks and comparison to other programming paradigms - just a discussion of a few concepts is not sufficient.

    Hmmm... the difficulty with that is that the surface appearance of different languages is very different. If an example were given in Scheme, editors who prefer ML would object (and vice versa). Moreover, it really is important for this article to let readers know FP isn't about the fact the language uses these particular symbols or words, but is more structural. Still, I think I can figure out something along the lines. LotLE×talk

    Check. Tried adding a section to meet this goal. LotLE×talk 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

    Perhaps using some kind of pseudo code would be useful, leaving out specific syntax and keeping the language fans away. It may be easier said than done, though. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We feel Python is a good choice since it is a real language, and is similar enough to pseudo code. Ideogram 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The article says little about the actual use of functional programming. Why is it mostly used in academic circles, and how does it compare to educational languages (in other paradigms)?

    Answering such a "why" question is too much of an invitation to original research and/or POV, I believe. LotLE×talk

    Maybe it will be original research, but the article should at least discuss some of the relevance of functional programming. Also, some sources may have the kind of information needed - I read "Why Functional Programming Matters" a while ago; IIRC it may contain information of use here. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There is mention of some concepts being used in other programming paradigms - more information would be useful.

    OK, I agree on this. It's not really in "other paradigms" as it is in "languages that primarily use other paradigms. But that could stand expansion. LotLE×talk

  • A few images would be possible (though not required), especially in the history section where many persons and languages are mentioned.

    Agreed, locating them is the challenge. LotLE×talk

  • More explanation of terms used is necessary - wikilinks alone are not enough, even if the readers are somewhat familiar with the field. A few words are often enough.

    OK. LotLE×talk

  • The article mentions several important/common features of functional programming languages, but some of these aren't mentioned at all in the rest of the article, such as closures or continuations (there may be more).

    Any other specifics? I'll work on the two you mention. LotLE×talk

  • The comparison section needs more (inline) references.

    OK. LotLE×talk

  • The "flow" of the article is poor at times - each paragraph seems to have been written by a different person.

    I'm sure that is almost literally true. A lot of different people have worked on it, each with fairly different concerns. But you can't exactly throw out the contributions of editors (if they address points relevant to the article). LotLE×talk 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have worked very hard on the "flow" of the article. If you could be more specific it would help a great deal. Ideogram 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Two main points: the history section reads a bit like a list of "in 19xx language X was developed by Y at organization Z". I have no concrete suggestions for improvement now, however. Secondly, in "simulating state" consists of one or two sentence paragraphs.

We will work on expanding these paragraphs. Ideogram 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor point is that there were (when I posted my objection) many paragraphs starting with "Functional programming...", which is kind of repetitive. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)