Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:51:53 +0000 (UTC) |
| Organization: | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| References: | <6effed5e-6c90-f5f4-0c80-a03c61fd2127@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-042 18-03-049 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="74788"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | Lisp, history |
| Posted-Date: | 13 Mar 2018 16:57:42 EDT |
On 2018-03-13, William Clodius <w.clodius@icloud.com> wrote:
> Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> So to answer your hypothetical question: how would programming language
>> be different if the designers of Algol 60 had decided to put
>> implementation convenience above mathematical simplicity
>> and expressive power in the language? ...
> Didn't Lisp have first order functions and closures in 58?
No. It was dynamically scoped: locals were basically saved and restored
globals, so lambda didn't capture any enviornment.
Lambda Calculus (even typed and all) was already known, and the
researchers must have been aware of it, or where else would they
have cribbed "LAMBDA" from, right?
Legend has it that MacCarthy has at some point admitted that he didn't
properly understand Lambda Calculus during the early Lisp work; I don't
have a citation for that.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.