🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6264@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
<From paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz (Paul Bailes):
<< The answer is quite clear: a modern-style functional language [...]
<
<    Since the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science has
<    specified parallel programming as one of the 11 major topics
<    to be covered in an introductory course, the language used
<    should be one in which parallel programming is supported.

Does the ACM document say the Ada model of parallelism should be taught? If
not, is the Ada sort really the best kind for beginners?

<    Quoting David M. Harland (Concurrency and Programming Languages, 1986):
<
<       The history-sensitivity of the imperative languages contrasts
<       with the total inability of functional systems to handle
<       interactions with the outside world...  

Eh?? Please explain what this is referring to! 

<	It is interesting
<       to ponder what would happen if processes were made explicit
<       in functional languages.  With the introduction of arbitrary
<       interactions, sequentiality would return ...

This is silly! Any language, even a 'parallel' one like Ada, has to perform
interactions in some sequence. Unless of course you make the user type on two
keyboards at the same time :-)

I don't get the impression from reading your quote that David Harland knows 
a great deal about functional languages. 

<    But don't worry; Ada will be quite happy to take up the slack while 
<    you functional programming types run right back to the drawing board...
<
<    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu

Well, I agree with Paul Bailes anyway. God, I love language wars! Hey, let's
get some personal insults into the next few postings :-)

John Cupitt