Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Why do some languages differentiate between methods that return a value and methods that don’t?
i.e. in Oracle’s PL/SQL, where the primary difference between a function and a procedure is that the function must return a value, and the procedure must not.
Likewise for languages that don’t, why not?
EDIT: I have found a related question that might interest people reading this question:
Because in the original conceptions of Computer Science theory and practice, Functions and Subroutines had virtually nothing to do with each other.
FORTRAN is usually credited as the first language that implemented both of these and demonstrated the distinctions. (Early LISP had a somewhat opposing role in this also, but it had little impact outside of academia).
Following from the traditions of mathematics (which CS was still part of in the 60’s) functions were only seen as the encapsulation of parametrized mathematical calculations solely intended to return a value into a larger expression. That you could call it “bare” (F = AZIMUTH(SECONDS)) was merely a trivial use case.
Subroutines, on the other hand were seen as a way to name a group of statements meant to have some effect. Parameters were a huge boost to their usability and the only reason that they were allowed to return modified parameter values was so that they could report their status without having to rely on global variables.
So, they really had no conceptual connection, other than encapsulation and parameters.
The real question, is: “How did so many developers come to see them as the same?”
And the answer to that is C.
When K+R originally designed their high-level macro assembler type language for the PDP-11 (may have started on the PDP-8?), they had no delusions of hardware independence. Virtually every “unique” feature of the language was a reflection of the PDP machine language and architecture (see i++ and –i). One of these was the realization that functions and subroutines were implemented identically in the PDP except that the caller just ignored the return value (in R0 [, R1]) for subroutines.
Thus was born the void pointer, and after the C language had taken over the whole world of programming, with it came the misperception that this HW/OS implementation artifact (though true on almost every subsequent platform) was the same as the language semantics.