carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) (02/17/90)
What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for the discussion of functional programming languages? The comp.lang.* groups are currently dominated by imperative programming languages, with no groups (other than perhaps .misc) suitable for the discussion of f.p.l.'s. Considering the growing popularity that they have, their relevance for such hot topics as parallel processing, and the lack of a suitable forum, I for one would very much like to see such a group created. David Carlton carlton@husc4.harvard.edu
kevin@argosy.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) (02/18/90)
I'm all in favor of such a group. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin S. Van Horn | The means determine the ends. kevin@argosy.maspar.com |
charmi@nekkar.cs.buffalo.edu (Giancarlo Succi) (02/18/90)
In article <1619@husc6.harvard.edu>, carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) writes: > > What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for > the discussion of functional programming languages? I definitely *agree* Giancarlo Internet charmi@cs.Buffalo.Edu UUCP charmi%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvms.bitnet Bitnet !{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!charmi Grapes, not strawberries!
larsen@imada.dk (Soren Larsen) (02/18/90)
carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) writes: >What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >the discussion of functional programming languages? The comp.lang.* groups I second that motion. -- Soren Larsen / larsen@imada.dk Dept. of Math. & Computer Science, Odense University Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark phone: +45 66 15 86 00, ext. 2312 / telefax: +45 65 93 26 91
farrell@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Friendless) (02/19/90)
carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) writes: >What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >the discussion of functional programming languages? About time! I've been pushing for such a group in Australia, but Australian academics seem to be anti-net. Could someone knowledgeable and capable start the administrative machine and see if we get an FP group out of it? John
arshad@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Arshad Mahmood) (02/19/90)
>carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) writes: > > >What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >the discussion of functional programming languages? The comp.lang.* groups I too am in favour of this. It's about time ! A. Mahmood LFCS Edinburgh University Scotland
sjt@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Thompson) (02/20/90)
Very Good Idea Simon Thompson sjt@ukc.ac.uk
mph@lion.inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) (02/20/90)
In article <1619@husc6.harvard.edu> carlton@husc4.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes: > >What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >the discussion of functional programming languages? And (presumably) implementation techniques? An excellent idea - you have my support. Mike, Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK. ----------------------------------------------------------- UK : mph@inmos.co.uk with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS; US : mph@inmos.com use STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/21/90)
In article <1619@husc6.harvard.edu> carlton@husc4.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes: > >What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >the discussion of functional programming languages? I'm in favor. Indeed, I was surprised that there wasn't such a group already. The only problem would be if we later wanted a ML group, say. Should it have to be comp.lang.functional.ml?
dorai@helma.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) (02/21/90)
In article <1797@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <1619@husc6.harvard.edu> carlton@husc4.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes: >> >>What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news groups, for >>the discussion of functional programming languages? > >I'm in favor. Indeed, I was surprised that there wasn't such a group >already. The only problem would be if we later wanted a ML group, >say. Should it have to be comp.lang.functional.ml? I'm tentatively in favor too; however, "functional" is about the most ambivalent, and consequently useless, term in programming languages. The two common (often incompatible) views seem to be i) A language which has higher-order functions; ii) Ditto, but which very definitely eschews "assignment." In apparent contrast, "imperative" languages support "assignment," and are perceived oftentimes, why, I don't know, as definitely having no higher-order functions (procedures). Thus we have the paradox of Scheme and ML being both "imperative" ("non-functional," taking definition ii)) as well as "functional" (taking definition i)). It may be we should choose another name. --dorai -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be that the gulfs will wash us down; It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ijd@otter.hpl.hp.com (Ian Dickinson) (02/21/90)
>I'm in favor. Indeed, I was surprised that there wasn't such a group >already. The only problem would be if we later wanted a ML group, >say. Should it have to be comp.lang.functional.ml? No. Whilst we may hope that comp.lang.functional would encourage extra discussion on functional langauges, it seems plausible to me that it will settle down to a steady state of having some fraction of the traffic on comp.lang.misc - hardly enough to justify a new group. Also, there is already a mailing list devoted to sml, and it wouldn't justify a new group either. In any case, most of the discussion on sml-list revolves around ambiguities in semantics for various constructs. Whilst some of these are purely sml specific, others are more general in scope: what do you want in a module system in a functional language, for example? People from other functional language backgrounds might well usefully contribute to such discussion. I am in favour of comp.lang.functional but not comp.lang.functional.xxxx. / otter:comp.lang.misc / dorai@helma.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) / writes: > I'm tentatively in favor too; however, "functional" is about the most > ambivalent, and consequently useless, term in programming languages. Fooey! Computer science abounds with - nay thrives on - ambiguous terms. Consider: is "functional" less ambiguous than, say, "user-friendly" or "fourth generation"? The term "functional" *is* unfortunate in being overloaded with "posessing functionality" and "pertaining to functions", however, but I submit that this is easily resolved by context. A functional language, as the term is commonly used, has as its primary representation formalism pure, typed or untyped lambda calculus. For better or worse, some functional languages supplement the pure lambda calculus with imperative constructs, for purely pragmatic reasons. > The two common (often incompatible) views seem to be > i) A language which has higher-order functions; Most implementations of the lambda calculus allow fist class functions, and are therefore higher order. > ii) Ditto, but which very definitely eschews "assignment." A language which eschews imperative constructs (ie side effects) is referentially transparent. These two features are orthogonol: you can have none, one or both in a language and neither entails the other. > Thus we have the paradox of Scheme and ML being both "imperative" > ("non-functional," taking definition ii)) as well as "functional" > (taking definition i)). Scheme and Sml have *useful* purely functional, higher order core notations, and imperative extensions. You can choose to write an imperative program in either, but you don't have to. Mostly, programs are better off for being purely functional. > --dorai Ian. !Ian Dickinson, HP Labs, Information Systems Centre, Bristol, England! !net: ijd@hplb.hpl.hp.com ! ! ! or: ijd@hplb.uucp !The unification of mind, body and spirit:! !These opinions are all my own work.! ?- mind(X), body(X), spirit(X). !
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (02/22/90)
In article <1797@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >The only problem would be if we later wanted a ML group, >say. Should it have to be comp.lang.functional.ml? Nah, that would be comp.lang.(s)ml. Comp.lang.functional would be like comp.lang.misc, that is, the group for all the functional languages w/o their own group. Anyway, comp.lang.functional is a good idea. You have my support. Note, btw, that there is already a (quite active) SML mailing list. /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | If you want PL/I, you know where to CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | find it. -- D. M. Ritchie
zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E Spero) (02/23/90)
[ talk about namespace ] Comp.functional has a certain ring to it, and when the imperative languages die out, there'll still be plenty of room to expand it as a hierachy. I think that the charter should include imperative languages like Scheme and ML, but shouldn't include the discussion of the non-functional aspects of these languages. By the way, has the group had a formal Call For Discussion posted? Judging from the response so far, there definitely seems to be enough interest to make it worth proceeding. [ Mention of active SML mailing list ] On a related point, it would be nice if the new newsgroup could be merged , or at least gatewayed, with the existing fp mailing list. I am told there is also an Australian fp mailing list which is separate from the yale/uea/Chalmers one? Simon -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ zmacx07@uk.ac.ic.doc | sispero%cix@specialix.co.uk | ..!ukc!slxsys!cix!sispero ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Can programming be liberated from the Von Neumann style? No FP, No Comment. "The GNU Manifesto refers to all Software, not just Editors" | (I'm the FSF)
sasaki@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Dr. Jim Sasaki ) (02/23/90)
In article <1619@husc6.harvard.edu> carlton@husc4.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes: > What do people think about creating a comp.lang.functional news group... Sounds nice to me, too. -- Jim Sasaki (sasaki@umbc3.umbc.edu)
wright@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (David A. Wright) (02/26/90)
zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E Spero) writes: >By the way, has the group had a formal Call For Discussion posted? >Judging from the response so far, there definitely seems to be enough >interest to make it worth proceeding. I would also vote for the creation of this newsgroup. >On a related point, it would be nice if the new newsgroup could be merged , >or at least gatewayed, with the existing fp mailing list. I am told there is >also an Australian fp mailing list which is separate from the >yale/uea/Chalmers one? Yes, there is an Australian fp mailing list ("ausfp@tasis.utas.oz.au" with administration going to "ausfp-request@tasis.utas.oz.au"). >Simon David -------------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wright Department of Computer Science ACSNet: wright@tasis.utas.oz.au University of Tasmania Tel: (002)-20-2380 GPO Box 252C, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------------
mattias@emil.CSD.UU.Se (Mattias Waldau) (02/27/90)
Why not comp.lang.declarative so that logic programming (not Prolog) and equational languages are also included? Mattias Waldau Computing Science Department mattias@emil.csd.uu.se P.O. Box 520, S-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden Phone: +46-18-181055
graeme@omero.enet.dec.com (Graeme Harker) (03/14/90)
Wanting to ask a question about Z, I thought I would scan my .newsrc
for an appropriate newsgroup. Not finding comp.lang.miranda or
comp.lang.functional, I guessed comp.lang.misc might be the only hope.
I opened the newsgroup to find that comp.lang.functional was indeed
under consideration. I would vote for that, however...
I might suggest that the newsgroup would be better named...
soc.culture.europe-and-british-empire
since the Americans seem singularly uninterested in functional
languages.
Returning to my question, I'm looking for references to Z, the formal
methodology developed by the Programming Research Group at Oxford
University, England.
I'd like to find a summary in electronic form but am interested in
paper references too.
Cheers,
Graeme Harker, Digital SpA, Piazza XX Settembre, 21100 Varese, Italy
uucp : ...{sun,decvax,hplabs,ucbvax}!decwrl!omero.enet!graeme
Internet : graeme@omero.enet.dec.comjack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (03/14/90)
graeme@omero.enet.dec.com (Graeme Harker) wrote: > Wanting to ask a question about Z, I thought I would scan my .newsrc > for an appropriate newsgroup. Not finding comp.lang.miranda or > comp.lang.functional, I guessed comp.lang.misc might be the only hope. Try comp.specification. Not only is it the appropriate group, it's had a discussion introducing Z in the last week. -- -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcvax and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (03/16/90)
In article <9003131617.AA02925@decwrl.dec.com> graeme@omero.enet.dec.com (Graeme Harker) writes: >the Americans seem singularly uninterested in functional >languages. I am a Master's-level student in Computer science, and when I came to this school, I was surprised to find very little interest in functional languages here. The "core" languages are Modula2 (soon to be replaced by Ada), and C. There is considerable interest in C++, Objective C, and Object-oriented programming in general, but aside from AI courses, our only exposure to functional languages is in a general course on programming languages. Having seen that the concensus here is along these lines, I find it unusual to see that in other parts of the world it is ML that is the standard language, and C is only looked at as a "get your hands dirty" language. That is the attitude that people have here for Basic, Fortran, or Cobol, but certainly not for C or Ada. I suppose that there really is a significant difference in the mainstream mentality of our educational institutions, between Europe-&-Commonwealth and America. Of course there are considerable differences between schools in the US, but overall we have a concern for preparing students for industry/ business, and there is very little learning for learning's sake. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (03/16/90)
In article <25ffdf21.179d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo (John R. Dudeck) writes: >Having seen that the concensus here is along these lines, I find it >unusual to see that in other parts of the world it is ML that is the >standard language, and C is only looked at as a "get your hands dirty" >language. ... which is how we regard it here at Edinburgh (home of ML, of course). I don't think that C has any redeeming features as a language to illustrate software techniques. I use it on my Macintosh, at home, but we use ML as systems language for everything else. >I suppose that there really is a significant difference in the mainstream >mentality of our educational institutions, between Europe-&-Commonwealth and >America. Of course there are considerable differences between schools in >the US, but overall we have a concern for preparing students for industry/ >business, and there is very little learning for learning's sake. First point: ML is a language with a deep mathematical underpinning; the polymorphic type system, the soundness and principality proofs,the static semantics of modules and parameterisation, the full operational semantics of the language (coming to a bookstore near you, soon), and so on. Ditto for Miranda with its close relation to the lambda-calculus. I get the feeling that this makes these languages unpopular in the US where a computer language is a practical tool to get a job done, and the underlying theory is seen as irrelevant. "So what if the C type system is unsound or incomplete?" I'd be curious (and this is not a flame) to hear how many software people don't care about the things I mentioned at the start of this paragraph, and why. Second point: new languages are not "learning for learning's sake"; the sooner the newer languages (be they functional, OO, or whatever, and no, I *don't* mean C++ here) take over from the old low-level languages we use for the majority of software development today, the sooner software development will become less time consuming and error prone. >John Dudeck 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?
nelan@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (George Nelan) (03/17/90)
In article <2875@castle.ed.ac.uk>, nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: > In article <25ffdf21.179d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo (John R. Dudeck) writes: > >Having seen that the concensus here is along these lines, I find it > >unusual to see that in other parts of the world it is ML that is the > >standard language, and C is only looked at as a "get your hands dirty" > >language. > > <etc...> > > First point: ML is a language with a deep mathematical underpinning; > <etc...> > Nick, I have to get another rec.music.synth ticket, so I'll keep this short:> I just talked with Ed Ashcroft (Lucid) about this. One theory is that the English (et al.) had to resort to math to do computers at the time the Americans (et al.) started using them (to actually do something) -- the English simply didn't have them. Does this mean the Americans slowed down in functional theory? Well, perhaps. Let us recall that Curry, Church and McCarthy (I'm sure I'm missing some) all did significant work in America. These folks are surely pioneers in functional thinking. BTW, I'm trying to be objective here (not nationalistic). There are quite a few folks involved in functional/declarative work in the U.S. Some of them are right here at ASU. When (I assume) comp.lang.functional comes online, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant "non-british.empire" contribution. Then again, the haskell thought police might prove me wrong :> We'll see. -- George Nelan, ERC 207, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 85287 INET: nelan@enuxha.eas.asu.edu UUCP: ...{allegra,{ames,husc6,rutgers}!ncar}!noao!asuvax!nelan What, me worry? Nyah!
allen@sblapis1.cs.sunysb.edu ( Allen Leung) (03/17/90)
In article <25ffdf21.179d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: > >In article <9003131617.AA02925@decwrl.dec.com> graeme@omero.enet.dec.com (Graeme Harker) writes: >>the Americans seem singularly uninterested in functional >>languages. > >[stuff about lack of interest in functional languages deleted.] Here at Stony Brook the interest in functional languages(ML,Facile,etc) *and* relational languages(PROLOG) is very strong. In fact, our entry level computer courses are all taught in a mixture of ML, Prolog and Pascal(??). The undergrad and graduate programming languages courses focus in a large part on functional languages. There are even plans to update the compiler course soon using ML as the meta-language( no pun intended.) Maybe we are singularly blessed in the US, but I doubt it. --a. leung CSNET: allen@sbcs.sunysb.edu
carlton@husc9.husc6 (david carlton) (03/18/90)
It looks to me as well that the Americans are much less interested than the Europeans about functional programming languagues. In the votes received so far for c.l.f, I've received approximately as many votes from .uk sites as from .edu sites, despite the fact that many more people are at the latter than at the former. (yes?) Of course, there are many americans who aren't at .edu sites, and I've certainly received votes from .com's, .org's, etc. - but I've also received a decent amount of votes from Sweden, the Netherlands, France, and so forth. It's really hard to tell much with precision by looking strictly at the numbers - one would need to know how many people at those sites read news, vote for newsgroups, post, which groups they post to, etc., but it certainly looks to me like there is much more interest in functional programming languages in Europe than in the U.S. If anybody's interested, I'll post various breakdowns of votes by region to comp.lang.functional when it gets started - it's sorta interesting to look at. Or maybe we need comp.lang.functional.sociology? :-) David Carlton carlton@husc4.harvard.edu
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (03/19/90)
In article <572@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, nelan@enuxha (George Nelan) writes: >Nick, I have to get another rec.music.synth ticket, so I'll keep this >short:> Ok - I'll see in .synth later... :-) >I just talked with Ed Ashcroft (Lucid) about this. One theory is that the >English (et al.) had to resort to math to do computers at the time the >Americans (et al.) started using them (to actually do something) -- the >English simply didn't have them. Does this mean the Americans slowed down in >functional theory? Well, perhaps. Pete da Silva also suggested this a while ago; there well may be something to it. >There are quite a few folks involved in functional/declarative work in the U.S. >Some of them are right here at ASU. When (I assume) comp.lang.functional >comes online, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant "non-british.empire" >contribution. Then again, the haskell thought police might prove me wrong :> >We'll see. Oh, the Haskell Thought Police seem quite friendly, at lease the ones I've met. Of course, Haskell and ML go in rather different directions, and each has failings that the other attempts to address. I also look forward to much talk and merriment on comp.lang.functional; maybe I'll be allowed to mention the odd non-declarative feature like exception-handling... >George Nelan, ERC 207, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 85287 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?
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (03/19/90)
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?
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (03/21/90)
In article <572@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> nelan@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (George Nelan) writes: >I just talked with Ed Ashcroft (Lucid) about this. One theory is that the >English (et al.) had to resort to math to do computers at the time the >Americans (et al.) started using them (to actually do something) -- the >English simply didn't have them. [...] Well, we had them. I think that the machines that I used from (say) 1965 to 1975 [Ferranti Atlas, EELM KDF9, ICL 1906A], though not as well known in the USA as various IBMs, were at least as good. But it is certainly the case that there grew to be two different styles of programming, the "think first and let's try to get this right" school, and the "I need the results by yesterday" school. I don't think this was an English (or European) v. American split (though it could be argued that it worked out somewhat that way). A better case could be made for it being a non-Fortran v. Fortran split, but that's another tin [:-)] of worms. -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk