Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages (shells != not data flow)
Message-ID: <2626@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Jan 89 03:41:56 GMT
References: <27309@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2269@eos.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 19

In article <2269@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
> From: Jack Dennis <dennis@riacs.edu>
> # Are Unix shell languages "data flow" languages?  --  Not really. They use
> # the notion of composing stream functions, however since the individual
> # func may cause "side effects" on files, I would not call them pure
> # functional, and therefore they are not data flow.

I can't agree. That's like saying the only lisp is pure lisp, since in pure
lisp there are no side effects... only the return value of a function is
used.

Just because X has additional features other than those in a pure Y language,
doesn't mean that X isn't a Y language. The shell and Icon are dataflow
languages with side effects.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.