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
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;
px@fctunl.rccn.pt (Joaquim Baptista (pxQuim)) (02/21/90)
I think we can do better than comp.lang.functional. If you recognize functional as the paradigm it is, I propose the name comp.functional. This keeps it in parallelism with comp.object, dedicated to the object paradigm in genneral and to no language in particular. Note that the name comp.lang.functional might somewhat be misunderstood into flame wars among some languages, which should, IMHO, be kept within their groups. Please mail personal comments, for I may not be reading this group. -- Joaquim Manuel Soares Baptista, aka px@fctunl.rccn.pt, px@unl.uucp Snail: CRIA, UNINOVA, FCT/UNL, 2825 Mt Caparica, Portugal Confused? You won't be after the next episode of... Soap!
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
mph@lion.inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) (02/23/90)
In article <5144@brazos.Rice.edu> dorai@helma.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) writes: >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 tentatively in favor too; however, "functional" is about the most >ambivalent, and consequently useless, term in programming languages. I take the view that a functional language is one which uses the Lambda Calculus as its underlying semantic model, the syntax, type system and pragmatics are what vary between the languages. I think that such languages should form the central thread of discussion in this proposed news group. I am aware that some languages (eg. ML) which are fundamentally 'functional' in nature may have some imperative features, I don't think they should be excluded from the group on those grounds alone. However, there exist many other groups based on imperative programming in its many flavours, so I feel that comp.lang.functional should be dedicated primarily to the pure and functional features of languages. Mike, Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK. ----------------------------------------------------------- UK : mph@inmos.co.uk with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS; US : mph@inmos.com use STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;
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)
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/23/90)
In article <5144@brazos.Rice.edu> 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. >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." >Thus we have the paradox of Scheme and ML being both "imperative" >("non-functional," taking definition ii)) as well as "functional" >(taking definition i)). I don't think this is a problem, even if we accept (ii). Neither Scheme nor ML are strictly functional. However, both have an interesting functional subset. However, I don't think definition (i) is correct. A (wimpy) functional language might not have higher-order functions. Functional languages are applicative languages, ie ones w/o side-effects (think of mathematical functions).
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)
kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond) (02/23/90)
In article <1816@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <5144@brazos.Rice.edu> dorai@helma.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) writes: > >i) A language which has higher-order functions; > >ii) Ditto, but which very definitely eschews "assignment." > >However, I don't think definition (i) is correct. A (wimpy) >functional language might not have higher-order functions. Functional >languages are applicative languages, ie ones w/o side-effects (think >of mathematical functions). In mathematics, a functional is a higher-order function. I don't see how a language wo HOFs can really be described as functional! But that's "just" terminology. I would read this group if it concerned itself primarily with non-imperative features (or the modelling of "imperative" features in a non-imperative fashion). There are several functional programmers here who would take a similar stance, I'm sure (there are 20-30 people here working on research in pure functional programming). Personally, I think it would be a good thing to get the pure functional programmers talking to the SMLers, Schemers etc. Kevin -- Wot? No Signature? UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!kh JANET: kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/27/90)
In article <4626@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond) writes: >In mathematics, a functional is a higher-order function. I don't see >how a language wo HOFs can really be described as functional! But >that's "just" terminology. You have to distinguish between "functional" used as an adjective and "functional" used as a noun. Functional languages don't have to provide functionals. Of course, you might have meant it as a joke.
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