🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <24281@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <27388@nigel.ee.udel.edu> carroll@udel.edu (Mark Carroll <MC>) writes:
>>How can we realisticly unify the models of Pascal, Smalltalk, and ML?
>
>It's been pretty much done already, since Smalltalk subsumes both
>Pascal and ML (modulo built-in functions that are present in ML but
>not in Smalltalk).
>

I think that this is a completely ludicrous statement. Smalltalk
does NOT subsume ML; ML is a strongly statically-typed language where most
values are immutable. Smalltalk is a dynamically typed language which
is completely dependant on local state. An ML program models lambda
calculus expansion; "objects" are represented by immutable values
which "stream" to handle time, creating a system where objects values
never change, but identity does; Smalltalk programs model OO automata
with object identity; an objects IDENTITY never changes, but its
value does. They may have equivalent expressiveness, but neither
one subsubes the other.

>
>>Or, suppose I write a log routine in a language like Prolog. How, within
>>the structure of a single language, can I make imperative parts of the
>>program handle backtracking?
>
>Icon is an imperative language with backtracking.  It is a beautiful
>example of how dissimilar paradigms can be combined.

True. I deserved to be shot down on that one; if I had thought about
it, I would have remembered Icon.


>-- 
>					David Gudeman
--
|Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>  |"We the people want it straight for a change;
|Soon-to-be Grad Student at| cos we the people are getting tired of your games;
|University of Delaware    | If you insult us with cheap propaganda; 
|carroll@udel.edu          | We'll elect a precedent to a state of mind" -Fish