On May 9, 10:39 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: > > Long story short: the lambda > > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks. > > These models of computation should not use the same language. Their > > computation models are too radically different. > > Their computation models are exactly equivalent. > > This is like saying that Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates are > so radically different that they cannot possibly both describe the same > space.
Spot on Steven -- thanks. And further we do know that from a pragmatic POV the two can be quite different. For example cartesian are easier for add/subtract, whereas polar are easier for multiply/divide. And so on occasion the best way of doing an operation is to -- if necessary -- convert to the more appropriate format. I feel that the case of alternate computation models is analogous -- for some purposes one model works well and sometimes another. Python embeds the functional model almost as natively as it does the imperative/OO model. This is an aspect of python that is powerful but can also make it hard for some people. In short, python's multi- paradigm possibilities could do with some good publicity. My own attempts at bringing functional thinking to classical imperative languages and Python in particular, will be up at: https://moocfellowship.org/submissions/the-dance-of-functional-programming-languaging-with-haskell-and-python It is also an attempt at bringing the lightness and freedom of Python to the Haskell community and answer divisive judgements of computational models/paradigms such as the OP's. More details at http://blog.languager.org/2013/05/dance-of-functional-programming.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list