Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!amdahl!pacbell!indetech!david From: david@indetech.UUCP (David Kuder) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages Message-ID: <1226@indetech.UUCP> Date: 13 Jan 89 03:36:17 GMT References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com> <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Reply-To: david@emerald.UUCP (David Kuder) Distribution: na Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA Lines: 19 In article eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >Quite possibly. You're thinking of things like Backus's pure-functional >language aren't you? Yes, that has the B&D nature. So does Prolog. Don't >for a minute think I reserve my spleen for *obvious* examples of the breed... > I think your use of B&D just got too broad. Every language has a paradigm, Prologs may be other than procedural but it isn't any more constricting than C or LISP. As far as it goes, it has always struck me as freeing rather than binding. It does have a certain discipline to it but what language doesn't? Even this verdammit English stuff has rules that insure that things are understood. Speaking of *obvious* examples, what isn't a B&D language? Is there a better way of differentiating it from, for example, APL than calling one B&D? -- ____*_ David A. Kuder {sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david \ / / Independence Technologies \/ / 42705 Lawrence Place FAX: 415 438-2034 \/ Fremont, CA 94538 Voice: 415 438-2003