On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 18:10 -0700, Darren New wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > > especially interesting is a flash presentation > > http://subtextual.org/demo1.html > > I saw this same flash presentation with the same examples years ago. > It's not really obvious it's any easier than the normal definition of > factorial or whatever. How would you handle database, 3D graphics, etc? > > There's another language called "boxer" which also loses the source (so > to speak) and would seem to be better at functional programming, or at > least teaching that. You might be able to dig something up on that, if > you like these kinds of languages. > > > I believe he's onto something big! > > If he is, he's doing a poor job of actually producing something with it. > :-) It doesn't seem to be that far different from QBE. > > -- > Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST) > I bet exercise equipment would be a lot more > expensive if we had evolved from starfish.
Beats me why one would want to obfuscate perfectly obvious abstract concepts by unnecessarily specific examples, anyway. Christoph -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
