Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages
Message-ID: <2669@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 9 Jan 89 14:44:03 GMT
References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 33

In article <13293@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes:
> In article <2630@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >I don't. I define a procedural language as one in which all modules have a
> >parent-child relationship with each other....

>      Hmmm.  By this definition, Prolog would have to be procedural. 
> Attempting to unify a clause results in a parent-child call to its
> subclauses.

Hmmm. Maybe there should be something in there about explicit relationships,
or something. Or maybe 'procedural' is something in the mind of the programmer.
A Prolog program looks more like a homogenous database... hmmm...

Of course I'm not going to attempt to defend Prolog as being or not
being procedural... I'm not a Prolog fan. In fact I'm pretty down on it.

>      On the other hand, both ConcurrentSmalltalk and my language Theme
> would have to be non-procedural because the message sends are real message
> sends, not disguised procedure calls.

I would say any language that uses concurrency as one of its basic paradigms
is pretty non-procedural. What does "Theme" look like?

Personally, I'd much rather program in Concurrent C than Objective C.

>      Is this really what you meant to say?

I don't know. It's pretty close to what I meant to say.
-- 
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.