Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!enuxha!nelan From: nelan@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (George Nelan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: comp.lang.functional Message-ID: <572@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> Date: 16 Mar 90 22:15:41 GMT References: <9003131617.AA02925@decwrl.dec.com> <2875@castle.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe Lines: 36 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. > > > > First point: ML is a language with a deep mathematical underpinning; > > 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!