Re^5: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

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.

Comment on Re^5: The first lambda language to go mainstream ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: The first lambda language to go mainstream ? by LanX (Saint) on Aug 12, 2010 at 10:27 UTC
> 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]
Re^7: The first lambda language to go mainstream ? by morgon (Priest) on Aug 13, 2010 at 10:49 UTC
Crockford gave a definition Not true. He just uses the term. In contrast see ... So? I thought we've been there already. First-class functions alone do not make a lambda language. Perl is a multi-paradigm language And who ever disputed that?. All of this is not really such an interesting issue. If it makes you feel better freel free to call JS, Perl and whatnot "lambda languages". It's a bit like Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean") so if you want to use the term "lambda langage" meaning just "a language with first-class functions" you can of course. However I contend that the term is usually used as a synonym for "functional progamming language" and"having first-class functions" and "being a functional language" are not the same thing (the former being nessecary but not sufficient for the latter).	[reply]