@Bálint a language fits into lots of paradigms, and most languages rarely perfectly match a given paradigm. That said, a given paradigm more often depends on the programmer than the language
In computer programming, the notion of programming paradigms can have somewhat different meanings depending on its context of use.
Involving programming languages and programming: it is a way to classify programming languages according to the style of computer programming and idioms used.
Involving software development: it is a fundamental style of programming, which is not generally dictated by the project management methodology (such as waterfall or agile). Paradigms differ in the concepts and abstractions used to represent the elements of a program (such as objects, functions, variables,...
@Lembik My point is there's no point to even train it with 10000 prime numbers, there are no patterns so if you want good recognition on the training set it will learn the numbers directly
The 3BV of a Minesweeper board represents the minimum number of left clicks required to solve the board if you already know the solution.
Below is a solved Minesweeper board. The image on the right shows which tiles need to be clicked in order to solve the board. You would count one click for ea...
@Bálint It just feels like it does them all weird. On the OO front, objects are hashes (which is weird for a language whose APIs are heavily based on objects -- I'd expect it from a language where objects were an afterthought) but with prototype inheritance (which is also weird). Functional programming wise it's all right but it's not nearly as powerful as a true functional programming language like Haskell. And imperative programming wise it has a lot of weird quirks (no good for-each, etc)