Nothing to do with Scheme (was: Re: [plt-scheme] No More Boring Code)

Is their any evidence that there are problems with providing these
abstraction tools? It's not like the designers of java were unaware of
lisps, haskel etc.

On 4/9/09, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:01:41AM -0700, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> Honestly, this has nothing to do with Scheme.  There are *lots* of
>> languages out there that have the abstraction tools available to get
>> rid of the boring junk; Haskell, ML, Scheme, LISP, etc.  In a perfect
>> world, I'd like to create a rallying cry for *all* proponents of
>> functional programming.
>
> And the abstraction tools aren't even in conceptual conflict with
> imperative programming.  Why *do* all those languages leave tnem out?
>
> -- hendrik
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Cheers,

Stephen

--
Stephen De Gabrielle
s.degabrielle at cs.ucl.ac.uk
Telephone +44 (0)20 7679 0693 (x30693)
Mobile                  079 851 890 45
Project: Making Sense of Information (MaSI)
Work:http://www.uclic.ucl.ac.uk/annb/MaSI.html
Home:http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen


UCL Interaction Centre
MPEB 8th floor
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT