Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #6236Re: To trust or not to trust (Re: What is B&D?)
From: Dave Berry
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 15:06
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 15:06
26 lines
1601 bytes
1601 bytes
In article <8846@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >I have never said that totalitaritan languages are without value, just that >they are not as general-purpose as their supporters would have us believe. I thought you just claimed that they were a bit more inconvenient? In a recent article you emphasised that this was all you meant. >By the way, all of the languages I listed [Lisp, Prolog, SNOBOL, ...] are >higher level than any totalitarian language I know of. Many functional languages are fairly "totalitarian", as regards their type systems. I presume it weas someone else who claimed that Prolog was a totalitarian language. BTW, I don't believe that I'm wilfully misunderstanding you. I believe that you're being inconsistent. "Putting your case so that it can be misunderstood is not enough -- you must present it so that it cannot be misunderstood." - Bundy et. al., "How to get a Ph.D. in A.I." (Good advice, but damn difficult to do.) Dave Berry, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!db
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1286@etive.ed.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!lfcs!dbReferences:
<8846@megaron.arizona.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!lfcs!db From: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: To trust or not to trust (Re: What is B&D?) Message-ID: <1286@etive.ed.ac.uk> Date: 24 Jan 89 15:06:31 GMT References: <8846@megaron.arizona.edu> Sender: news@etive.ed.ac.uk Reply-To: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U Lines: 26