Tracy Harms-3 wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Robert Raschke <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ... >> Haskell is mostly (in my eyes) an exercise in Type Theory. Influenced by >> the >> whole "theorems as types, proofs as programs" thing. There's some >> mathematician attached to that idea, whose name eludes me just now.... > > Alonzo Church? If not restrictive on "mathematician" per se, perhaps > Robin Milner or Philip Wadler? > > Thanks for your comments on the importance of type theory to the > family of programming languages that relies so heavily on them. It's > interesting that their value is to impose a limit on lambda calculus, > as Backus' emphasis on function-level programming is also a > restriction on lambda calculus. > > I did get to ask a Stanford mathematician who teaches Category Theory > whether learning it would be applicable to J. He said there would > probably be some applicability, but probably less so than for Haskell. > [...] > If you find Haskell's type system insufficiently powerful and category theory of limited applicability to J, perhaps you should check out http://www.lambdassociates.org/ Qi , built on top of LISP.
Claims have been made that Qi has a more powerful type system than Haskell's and nothing short of http://www.lambdassociates.org/Studies/study01.htm the most powerful type system that a programming language could ever have. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/xmonad--was-Re%3A--Jprogramming--tail-recursion-TCO---tp23636312s24193p23689377.html Sent from the J Chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
