Jencel PanicDec 9

The level of progress in #programming languages:

Shortly after the first ever programming language was created, it's author said that the language's whole paradigm actually sucks and we should do #functionalprogramming instead. That was 46 years ago. We still use the same paradigm.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/359576.359579

Can programming be liberated from the von Neumann style?: a functional style and its algebra of programs: Communications of the ACM: Vol 21, No 8

Conventional programming languages are growing ever more enormous, but not stronger. Inherent defects at the most basic level cause them to be both fat and weak: their primitive word-at-a-time style of programming inherited from their common ancestor—...

Communications of the ACM
Show threadJencel Panic6d ago

And FP was created even before that

(from "Programming Haskell" by Graham Huttom)

#functionalprogramming #haskell #lisp

Show threadfl5d ago
@abuseofnotation Lisp I was already "pure", whatever it lmeans.
Show threadOriel Jutty 3d ago
@fl @abuseofnotation If you think Lisp is pure, I have a RPLACD to sell you.
Show threadfl3d ago

@barubary @abuseofnotation "If you think Lisp is pure, I have a RPLACD to sell you."

Lisp I was pure. Not Common Lisp.

Show threadOriel Jutty 
@fl @abuseofnotation I refer you to section "9.3 Further Functions" on page 134 of the "LISP I Programmer's Manual", 1960.
May 3 at 8:31pmWeb
Show threadfl3d ago
@barubary @abuseofnotation OK. I will read more. Thank you Oriel Jutty.
Show threadJencel Panic3d ago
@fl @barubary See comments above, being pure does not mean having only immutable data structures.
Show threadfl2d ago
@abuseofnotation @barubary I agree with that but at least you need features to recognize the pure functions at first sight. In Lisp and specially in Lisp I they don't exist.
Show threadJencel Panic2d ago
@fl @barubary Lisp is a great *tool for building* FP languages