Talk:Comparison of functional programming languages: Difference between revisions
BrettGiles (talk | contribs) m (Talk:Comparison moved to Talk:Comparison of functional programming languages) |
MichalPalka (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is there a way to point out which languages support the 'opposite' language's paradigms? I.e. Haskell and Clean both allow strictness. ML lets you write lazy code if needed. Just don't want to give the (harmful) impression that you can never get strictness in Haskell, noting that Clean now sells itself as a "strict and lazy" language. -- Don | Is there a way to point out which languages support the 'opposite' language's paradigms? I.e. Haskell and Clean both allow strictness. ML lets you write lazy code if needed. Just don't want to give the (harmful) impression that you can never get strictness in Haskell, noting that Clean now sells itself as a "strict and lazy" language. -- Don | ||
I don't know if 'side effects' are the best description of what Erlang uses. Perhaps 'asynchronous messages'? - [[User:MichalPalka|MichalPalka]] 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:27, 22 December 2007
Is there a way to point out which languages support the 'opposite' language's paradigms? I.e. Haskell and Clean both allow strictness. ML lets you write lazy code if needed. Just don't want to give the (harmful) impression that you can never get strictness in Haskell, noting that Clean now sells itself as a "strict and lazy" language. -- Don
I don't know if 'side effects' are the best description of what Erlang uses. Perhaps 'asynchronous messages'? - MichalPalka 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)