functional programming

neelk at neelk at
Thu Feb 24 17:39:17 CET 2000

In article <wkvh3ey75o.fsf at>, Dan
Schmidt <dfan at> wrote:
>neelk at (Neel Krishnaswami) writes:
>| [Joy language]
>| IMO, it's the endpoint of the strongly-typed FP mafia's
>| carried to its logical limit -- every Joy progam will
terminate, at
>| the cost of the language's Turing-completeness. I *was*
shocked by
>| just how much Joy *can* do: it pretty much sold me on the
idea that
>| embedding Joy-style "extremely-pure" sublanguages in bigger
ones is a
>| Good Idea.
>I looked it up and here's the Joy URL:

Augh! I just realized I screwed up the names. Joy, while an
excellent and cool language (it's a functional Forth, more
or less), is fully and totally 100% Turing-complete.

The language that I was /actually/ talking about is Charity,
which is a categorical programming language invented at the
University of Calgary:

Sigh -- my apologies for any confusion I've caused. :(


* Sent from RemarQ The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

More information about the Python-list mailing list