Re: dual-language systems increase modularity

[Shriram Krishnamurthi <address@hidden>]

Steve Dekorte wrote:

> I assumed it was obvious that I wasn't questioning whether two Turing 
> complete languages where capable of the same computation.

Well, you said

  dynamic typing makes available a whole new level of more powerful
  and flexible programming techniques

I guess you could argue that you were sufficiently vague in the first
place that it's hard to claim you *changed* your position.

> I bet we can make a good guess by asking a few people that haven't seen 
> F, Haskell or Io before. 

And you can always find a hayseed who hasn't seen Scheme before, throw
some continuation code at him, and get him to burble that yeah, it's
pretty hard to understand.  So what?  Would that constitute proof of
the disutility of Scheme, dynamic typing or continuations?

As someone who's spent a good chunk of his career nursing Scheme, I'm
hardly the one to be arguing here.  But I began with a very specific
point, and nothing in this thread has, as far as I can tell, really
refuted that point.

Shriram