in reply to Re^2: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?
in thread The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

You can argue that C does not have first-class functions and I would agree - that was not my point.

The point I was trying to make above is that (in my opinion) having first-class functions is not enough for a language to be called a "lambda language" (meaning functional language).

Otherwise practically every current language would be a "lambda language" and the term would not be very useful.

And so I would argue that the statement about JS being the first mainsteam lambda langues is simply wrong and the question weather it was predated by Perl irrelevant.

  • Comment on Re^3: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?
by LanX (Saint) on Aug 11, 2010 at 23:45 UTC
    > Otherwise practically every current language would be a "lambda language" and the term would not be very useful.

    so whats your definition of a lambda language?

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
      so whats your definition of a lambda language?
      I don't want to start a long thread here so I will certainly not even try to give a definition :-)

      But in the current context let's put it this way:

      Languages that make extensive use of assignments and non-pure functions are certainly (at least for me) *NOT* lambda languages.

[reply]
        > certainly (at least for me) * NOT * lambda languages.

        Crockford gave a definition you only give a opinionated non-definition.

        In contrast see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function#Comparison for a catalog of criterias.

        > Languages that make extensive use of assignments and non-pure functions

        Perl is a multi-paradigm language, supporting features of one paradigm doesn't mean excluding features of an other one.

        > I don't want to start a long thread here

        Neither me.

        Cheers Rolf

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom