- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:23:16 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Graham Klyne writes: > I'm biased in this respect, but I rather liked the reference to > Haskell. In particular, I thought the text was clear enough > (to me) that Haskell was no less powerful, but also carried the > suggestion that somehow pure functional expressions are more > amenable to the proffered advantages of less power. Thanks. That's certainly what I intended when I added it. I think that functional languages are a very interesting point on the power/complexity/analyseability scale, as they have all the expressive power of Turing completeness, but can be reasoned about in ways that are difficult with procedural languages. So, I was a bit disappointed when the first response (from Harry Halpin) worried that the text could be taken as criticising rather than supporting the best aspects of functional languages. I don't think this is worth a flame war, but I'll be curious to see how other readers took it. Thanks! Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 22:23:34 UTC