Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!nick
From: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: comp.lang.functional
Message-ID: <2915@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Mar 90 11:28:27 GMT
References: <9003131617.AA02925@decwrl.dec.com> <25ffdf21.179d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <6587@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <CARLTON.90Mar17154432@husc9.husc6>
Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Organization: Jenny Agutter Appreciation Society of Edinburgh
Lines: 30
In-reply-to: carlton@husc9.husc6 (david carlton)

In article <CARLTON.90Mar17154432@husc9.husc6>, carlton@husc9 (david carlton) writes:
>It looks to me as well that the Americans are much less interested
>than the Europeans about functional programming languagues.

...whereas OO programming seems to be kicking up a storm in the US;
perhaps because it's filling a lot of gaps which aren't catered
for by other languages. Here, I think, we're used to functional
languages which provide data abstraction, modularity and so on,
so OO isn't so new in those ways; although, inheritance, subtyping
and all this stuff is new and exciting.

It may also be the case that OO languages are being accepted only
slowly in academic circles here because of a lack of mathematical
rigour about their type systems and operational semantics.

These are generalisations, of course.

>  If anybody's interested, I'll post various breakdowns of votes by
>region to comp.lang.functional when it gets started

Does this mean it looks like going ahead? Whoopie.

>David Carlton

		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?