On 3/28/07, Peter Van Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ramon Diaz-Uriarte wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks a lot! I know no French, but Spanish seems to be close enough
> to make sense of most of it. What I've understood is extremely
> interesting and insightful.
>
> A few comments:
>
> 1. Maybe Termite (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/841;
> http://toute.ca/) could be included. It shows that Scheme can do
> Erlang-like concurrency, and I feel that is an interesting enough
> thing.
Actually, only a fraction of the relevant languages are mentioned
for each paradigm. There's no way I can be exhaustive. There's
also no way to avoid mentioning certain languages in several
places, such as Oz and AKL, which cover several paradigms.
It's clear that any paradigm can be implemented in any language,
but that does not necessarily "fit" well with the language.
Note that being "dual-paradigm" is actually a very common and
nice property: SQL is relational/transactional and Prolog is
relational/imperative. Modeling languages are other examples,
e.g., constraint modeling languages such as Numerica and OPL
are constraint/OO.
> 2. Would it not be appropriate to place Ada in the diagram? If I
> understand correctly it is imperative, but has a concurrency not
> unlike Erlang, except it is synchronous (not asynchronous). In
> addition, Ada seems to be the "paradigm" of a "very safe" programming
> language.
Ada would be an example of an imperative concurrent language,
right?
I guess so. (But I have no real knowledge about Ada).
I'm not sure how "safe" Ada is, except if you mean that it
has tools to do validation and verification.
I guess I was referring to type safety and related. (And its emphasis
on the being a good language for critical applications that just can't
fail, etc).
> 3. I do not have a problem with it, and I understand this is about
> paradigms, not languages per se, but I guess some people would start
> looking for C++ and then Python/Perl/Ruby/Mathematica/Matlab. However,
> for those that are not familiar with Oz, or Erlang, or any of the
> other languages in the figure, placing some of the languages that they
> are familiar with might help make the point clearer. But then, I see
> the opens a whole can of worms.
Yes. Python is a sequential OO language, Ruby is an OO language,
Perl is an imperative language, Mathematica/Matlab are functional
languages. Is this right?
I am not sure about Mathematica and Matlab. I guess this fits
Mathematica, but I am not sure about Matlab (I've never done anything
with Matlab myself).
R.
Peter
--
Ramon Diaz-Uriarte
Statistical Computing Team
Structural Biology and Biocomputing Programme
Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO)
http://ligarto.org/rdiaz
_________________________________________________________________________________
mozart-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mozart-oz.org/mailman/listinfo/mozart-users
