[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What's so cool about Scheme?

To: Michael Vanier <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
From: Mike Newhall <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:02:43 -0400
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
In-reply-to: <200306040150.h541owU16070@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu>
References: <3.0.3.32.20030603110001.01820ac8@mailbox.newhall.net><3.0.3.32.20030603024817.01810c3c@mailbox.newhall.net><3.0.3.32.20030603110001.01820ac8@mailbox.newhall.net>
Sender: address@hidden

At 06:50 PM 2003.06.03 -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:
>Lots of them: SML, ocaml, Haskell, Clean, ... At least if what you mean by
>dynamic is either or both of dynamic typing and code-as-data.  Dynamic in
>your sense is by no means a prerequisite for a language to be functional.
>
>Mike

	Because first-class functions, closures, and HOFs can be created without any need for dynamicism.  Then are there any special requirements at all for implementing a functional language?  By special I mean significantly different or more expensive than the techniques used in implementing an "ordinary" language like C?  Can you be functional without CONS cells and garbage collection, with functions represented at run time only by object code, and on a hardware stack?

References:
- Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
  - From: Mike Newhall <mike@newhall.net>
- Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
  - From: Mike Newhall <mike@newhall.net>
- Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
Next by Date: RE: What's so cool about Scheme?
Previous by thread: Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
Next by thread: RE: What's so cool about Scheme?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread