🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <572@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, nelan@enuxha (George Nelan) writes:
>Nick, I have to get another rec.music.synth ticket, so I'll keep this
>short:>

Ok - I'll see in .synth later... :-)

>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.

Pete da Silva also suggested this a while ago; there well may be
something to it.

>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.

Oh, the Haskell Thought Police seem quite friendly, at lease the ones
I've met. Of course, Haskell and ML go in rather different directions,
and each has failings that the other attempts to address.

I also look forward to much talk and merriment on
comp.lang.functional; maybe I'll be allowed to mention the odd
non-declarative feature like exception-handling...

>George Nelan, ERC 207, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 85287

		Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
      A prop?   ...or wings?      A prop?   ...or wings?      A prop?