On Saturday 29 December 2007 07:18:28 Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
However, both F# and Scala have the potential to dwarf all of these
languages in the not-so-distant future. I believe F# will do so in 2008
but Scala will take 2-3 years because they have far fewer resources to
? Kay's definition of OOP necessarily implies imperative behaviour.
OCaml has purely functional object update IIRC.
That's OK, but it doesn't seem to agree with Kay's definition. Erlang
definitely does.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a
bastard child...
1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old
it almost predates electricity...)
2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The two
On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a
bastard child...
1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old
it almost predates electricity...)
Before
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old
it almost predates electricity...)
Before the concepts of OO, functional, and imperative? Well, certainly before
OO -- the other
Don Stewart wrote:
A Wake Up Call for the Logic Programming Community
Or what the logic programming community can learn from the Haskell
community (in particular):
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/%7Edtai/projects/ALP//newsletter/dec07/content/Articles/tom/content.html
Interesting read!
Hallo,
Andrew Coppin escreveu:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP would
change my life forever because LISP has something called macros. I
tried to learn it, and disliked it greatly. It's too messy. And what
the heck is cdr ment to mean anyway? To me, LISP doesn't
On Dec 28, 2007 6:05 AM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP would
change my life forever because LISP has something called macros. I
tried to learn it, and disliked it greatly. It's too messy. And what the
heck is cdr ment to
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/%7Edtai/projects/ALP//newsletter/dec07/content/Articles/tom/content.html
Haskell is the undisputed flagship of the FP community.
Er... really?
It depends on how you define the FP community, of course. The
author
Brian Sniffen wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 6:05 AM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP would
change my life forever because LISP has something called macros. I
tried to learn it, and disliked it greatly. It's too messy. And what
Hallo,
Andrew Coppin escreveu:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 6:05 AM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP would
change my life forever because LISP has something called macros. I
tried to learn it, and disliked it
I thought Lisp and Erlang were both infinitely more
popular and better known.
Certainly not infinitely. Lisp isn't entirely functional, and while
Erlang is an industrial success story, I think Haskell is seeing a
wider range of application.
Well, it seems for me that Erlang is much less
On Dec 28, 2007 2:55 PM, Miguel Mitrofanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought Lisp and Erlang were both infinitely more
popular and better known.
Certainly not infinitely. Lisp isn't entirely functional, and while
Erlang is an industrial success story, I think Haskell is seeing a
On Friday 28 December 2007 11:05:12 Andrew Coppin wrote:
I thought Lisp and Erlang were both infinitely more
popular and better known. Followed by Clean and O'Camal.
According to the Debian and Ubuntu package popularity figures OCaml, Haskell
and Erlang are the most popular general-purpose
On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 20:23 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
. . .
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a
bastard child...
Give it its historical due, please -- bastard grandsire at least.
-- Bill Wood
___
Haskell-Cafe
Jon Harrop wrote:
However, both F# and Scala have the potential to dwarf all of these languages
in the not-so-distant future. I believe F# will do so in 2008 but Scala will
take 2-3 years because they have far fewer resources to develop essential
tools like working IDE plug-ins.
I agree on
On Saturday 29 December 2007 06:09:44 Bill Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 20:23 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a
bastard child...
Give it its historical due, please -- bastard grandsire at least.
You'll have to speak up: I
On Saturday 29 December 2007 06:31:35 Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
Well, it seems for me that Erlang is much less functional than Lisp.
It's totally OO, in fact.
OO is orthogonal to functional.
? Kay's definition of OOP necessarily implies imperative behaviour.
OCaml has purely functional
A Wake Up Call for the Logic Programming Community
Or what the logic programming community can learn from the Haskell
community (in particular):
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/%7Edtai/projects/ALP//newsletter/dec07/content/Articles/tom/content.html
Interesting read!
-- Don
Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A Wake Up Call for the Logic Programming Community
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/%7Edtai/projects/ALP//newsletter/dec07/content/Articles/tom/content.html
Interesting read!
Clearly, the logic programming people are vastly more successful at
our
20 matches
Mail list logo
