Kirby says: >So it was never really about "subroutines" not being "mathematical" enough. That turned out to be a red herring, and therefore so is much of this thread, in terms of the argument it proposes to be offering.
Your whole silly rant that has the above quote near the end is obviously directed at sentiments I *supposedly* advanced. Like Robert, you can't simply hear what I'm saying without layering on your own interpretation.
What I said, paraphrasing, was that programs and computations (complete with side-effects) can be viewed as mathematical objects, it can be useful to view them as such, but that its not always appreciated. The whole bit about FP and side-effects was simply a clarification of Lou's blanket statement that programming language functions are implementations of the mathematician's functions. Nowhere did I make any big deal out of that clarification or *ever* pronounce anywhere in this thread that some languages aren't good enough yadda yadda yadda. Good enough for what?
What I did offer early on, and has *not* been the subject of much discussion, it that kids can learn programming in grade school. I said nothing about qualifications of languages in that context.
What Robert and I have been going on about, as I see it, is his usual either-or dichotomy between math and computer science. Between book learnin' and (folk)art.
You're barking at shadows.
If there's something bogus here, it your whole premise that it somehow important to make sure functions are introduced in a "CS Friendly" way. They should be introduced in a way that makes the concept (such as it is) useful in context.