🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2875@castle.ed.ac.uk>, nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
> In article <25ffdf21.179d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo (John R. Dudeck) writes:
> >Having seen that the concensus here is along these lines, I find it 
> >unusual to see that in other parts of the world it is ML that is the 
> >standard language, and C is only looked at as a "get your hands dirty"
> >language.
> 
>	<etc...>
> 
> First point: ML is a language with a deep mathematical underpinning;
>	<etc...>
> 

Nick, I have to get another rec.music.synth ticket, so I'll keep this short:>

I just talked with Ed Ashcroft (Lucid) about this.  One theory is that the 
English (et al.) had to resort to math to do computers at the time the 
Americans (et al.) started using them (to actually do something) -- the
English simply didn't have them.  Does this mean the Americans slowed down in
functional theory?  Well, perhaps.

Let us recall that Curry, Church and McCarthy (I'm sure I'm missing some)
all did significant work in America.  These folks are surely pioneers in
functional thinking.  BTW, I'm trying to be objective here (not nationalistic).

There are quite a few folks involved in functional/declarative work in the U.S.
Some of them are right here at ASU.  When (I assume) comp.lang.functional
comes online, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant "non-british.empire"
contribution.  Then again, the haskell thought police might prove me wrong :>
We'll see.

-- 
George Nelan, ERC 207, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 85287
INET: nelan@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
UUCP: ...{allegra,{ames,husc6,rutgers}!ncar}!noao!asuvax!nelan
What, me worry?  Nyah!