functional programming

[neelk at alum.mit.edu]

In article <wkvh3ey75o.fsf at turangalila.harmonixmusic.com>, Dan
Schmidt <dfan at harmonixmusic.com> wrote:
>neelk at brick.cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) writes:
>|
>| [Joy language]
>|
>| IMO, it's the endpoint of the strongly-typed FP mafia's
approach,
>| carried to its logical limit -- every Joy progam will
terminate, at
>| the cost of the language's Turing-completeness. I *was*
shocked by
>| just how much Joy *can* do: it pretty much sold me on the
idea that
>| embedding Joy-style "extremely-pure" sublanguages in bigger
ones is a
>| Good Idea.
>
>I looked it up and here's the Joy URL:
><http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/philosophy/phimvt/j00syn.html>

Augh! I just realized I screwed up the names. Joy, while an
excellent and cool language (it's a functional Forth, more
or less), is fully and totally 100% Turing-complete.

The language that I was /actually/ talking about is Charity,
which is a categorical programming language invented at the
University of Calgary:

http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/projects/charity/home.html

Sigh -- my apologies for any confusion I've caused. :(


Neel



* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!