🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <edcpu#4E04mv=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>Quite possibly. You're thinking of things like Backus's pure-functional
>language aren't you? Yes, that has the B&D nature. So does Prolog. Don't
>for a minute think I reserve my spleen for *obvious* examples of the breed...
>
I think your use of B&D just got too broad.  Every language has a paradigm,
Prologs may be other than procedural but it isn't any more constricting than
C or LISP.  As far as it goes, it has always struck me as freeing rather than
binding.  It does have a certain discipline to it but what language doesn't?
Even this verdammit English stuff has rules that insure that things are
understood.

Speaking of *obvious* examples, what isn't a B&D language?  Is there a better
way of differentiating it from, for example, APL than calling one B&D?
-- 
____*_  David A. Kuder              {sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david
\  / /  Independence Technologies
 \/ /   42705 Lawrence Place        FAX: 415 438-2034
  \/    Fremont, CA 94538           Voice: 415 438-2003