[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

[Julian Fondren]

On 4/24/07, Mats Cronqvist <mats.cronqvist@REDACTED> wrote:
> Robert Virding wrote:
>    so erlang is functional, except for the process dictionary, messages,
> ports
> and ets? then perhaps it's time to stop pretending it's functional?

Nobody pretends that Erlang classes as a purely declarative
language, and arguing that it doesn't class as functional
would have you question Scheme and O'Caml, which share
that classification.  I'd say that Erlang 'is functional' the
Java or Ruby 'are imperative', but that people write Erlang
in a concurrency oriented style.

And if everyone stops pretending, how will anyone explain data
structures like 'queue', straight out of Purely Functional Data
Structures? :-)

Cheers,
Julian