NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Simple (Score:2)
Re:Simple (Score:1)
I don't think any of these fully explain why Smalltalk/Scheme/whatever didn't catch on in the first place (though they would explain why it is so hard for them to catch up after other langauges took root). For instance, if Scheme was a more popular language, you would likely see a lot more Scheme books.
I also suspect the "Difficulty" and "Syntax" reasons are non-issues if functional languages were people's first exposure to programming. LOGO, for instance, has a functional syntax and has been used to teach school kids to program.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Simple (Score:2)
True enough.
That's a pretty steep precondition for most programmers. The vast majority of programmers today did not use a functional language when first exposed to programming. The switch from an ALGOL derivative syntax and programming model to something fu
Re:Simple (Score:2)
I agree about the steep precondition. I still remember coming from BASIC to C in the 80s. I struggled to understand how someone could program without line numbers. Even though I agree with the premise that languages such as SmallTalk and Scheme would not seem so alien if these were the first languages that people were exposed to, the reality is that they are not the first language and they're unlikely to become that. Hence, we have a chicken and egg problem that is essentially unsolveable from this appr