Prototype-based languages merge these two concepts. There are only objects—no classes—and each individual object may contain state and methods. Objects can directly inherit from each other (or “delegate to” in prototypal lingo):

Peter J. Landin coined the term “closure”. Yes, he invented damn near half the terms in programming languages. Most of them came out of one incredible paper, “The Next 700 Programming Languages”.

If you combine local functions, first-class functions, and block scope, you run into this interesting situation: fun returnFunction() { var outside = "outside"; fun inner() { print outside; } return inner; } var fn = returnFunction(); fn(); Here, inner() accesses a local variable declared outside of its body in the surrounding function. Is this kosher? Now that lots of languages have borrowed this feature from Lisp, you probably know the answer is yes. For that to work, inner() has to “hold on” to references to any surrounding variables that it uses so that they stay around even after the outer function has returned. We call functions that do this closures. These days, the term is often used for any first-class function, though it’s sort of a misnomer if the function doesn’t happen to close over any variables.

Now’s a good time to clarify some terminology. Some people throw around “parameter” and “argument” like they are interchangeable and, to many, they are. We’re going to spend a lot of time splitting the finest of downy hairs around semantics, so let’s sharpen our words. From here on out: An argument is an actual value you pass to a function when you call it. So a function call has an argument list. Sometimes you hear actual parameter used for these. A parameter is a variable that holds the value of the argument inside the body of the function. Thus, a function declaration has a parameter list. Others call these formal parameters or simply formals

Several years ago, Michael Church wrote a neat summary of the American social class system, and how the traditional metaphor of “climbing the ladder of social class” is wrong in an important way. There isn’t one single ladder; there are three - each with different values, norms and goals. You have the first, and largest ladder, Labour. Next, you have the “Educated Gentry” ladder that corresponds to what we typically call the Upper Middle Class. And finally, you have the elite ladder. And the remarkable thing about these ladders is how perfectly they correspond to the three-tiered pyramid in The Office, of the losers, clueless, and sociopaths.  a.image2.image-link.image2-1150-1316 { padding-bottom: 87.38601823708207%; padding-bottom: min(87.38601823708207%, 1150px); width: 100%; height: 0; } a.image2.image-link.image2-1150-1316 img { max-width: 1316px; max-height: 1150px; }

Gandhi, however, was of the opinion that the industrial development and educational development that the Europeans brought with them was required to uplift India's problems.

The act also expanded the central and provincial legislatures and widened the franchise considerably. Diarchy set in motion certain real changes at the provincial level: a number of non-controversial or "transferred" portfolios, such as agriculture, local government, health, education, and public works, were handed over to Indians, while more sensitive matters such as finance, taxation, and maintaining law and order were retained by the provincial British administrators.