Re: Why functional languages?

Article View: comp.lang.functional

Article #616

Back to comp.lang.functional Previous Next

#616

From: Paul Stodghill
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 15:27

13 lines
1295 bytes

In article <26463@castle.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@castle.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:

   [ Bunch o' stuff discussing "(prefix)" notation vs. "prefix()" and infix
     notation deleted. ]

   The original poster was talking about the ease with which one lisp
   program could manipulate another(or itself), not readability as such.

I don't find the argument that "list-notation is easier to manipulate than
other notations" convincing. It seems to ignore the fact that people have
been manipulating abstract syntax trees for years. It is true, however,
that AST's are not a basic data type in most of these languages, and lists
are.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <STODGHIL.92Oct1102732@hel.cs.cornell.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!cloyd.cs.cornell.edu!stodghil

References: <TMB.92Sep28144424@arolla.idiap.ch> <annius.717696151@freyr> <TMB.92Sep28223555@arolla.idiap.ch> <26463@castle.ed.ac.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!cloyd.cs.cornell.edu!stodghil
From: stodghil@cs.cornell.edu (Paul Stodghill)
Subject: Re: Why functional languages?
In-Reply-To: jamesh@castle.ed.ac.uk's message of 1 Oct 92 12:57:12 GMT
Message-ID: <STODGHIL.92Oct1102732@hel.cs.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@cs.cornell.edu (USENET news user)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hel.cs.cornell.edu
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Cornell U.
References: <TMB.92Sep28144424@arolla.idiap.ch> <annius.717696151@freyr>
 <TMB.92Sep28223555@arolla.idiap.ch> <26463@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:27:32 GMT
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message