Le 5 avril 2012 16:14, Grigory Sarnitskiy <sargrig...@ya.ru> a écrit : > Hello! I've just realized that Haskell is no good for working with functions! > > First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual > set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive > definition should imply functions that can be constructed, computed. Thus > these are computable functions that should be of our concern. But computable > functions in essence are just a synonym for programs. > > One could expect from a language that bears 'functional' as its > characteristic to be able to do everything imaginable with functions. > However, the only thing Haskell can do with functions is to apply them to > arguments and to feed them as arguments, run in parallel (run and concatenate > programs). > > Obviously, that's not all of the imaginable possibilities. One also can > rewrite programs. And write programs that rewrite programs. And write > programs that rewrite programs that rewrite the first programs and so on. But > there is no such possibility in Haskell, except for introducing a DSL. > > So now I wonder, what are the languages that are functional in the sense > above? With a reasonable syntax and semantics, thus no assembler. I guess > Lisp might be of this kind, but I'm not sure. In addition, I'm not a fan of > parentheses. What else? Pure? Mathematica? Maxima?
Hello, You might be interested in https://github.com/MikeHaskel/Constructiva/wiki Cheers, Thu _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
