[Haskell-beginners] Doubts about functional programming paradigm

[Rustom Mody]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant <dedgrant at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody" <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs <rein.henrichs at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mr. McIlroy,
>>>
>>> FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It
>>> sounds like an amazing experience.
>>>
>>>
>> No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened
>>
>> About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors of
>> SICP!)
>>
>> http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more profound
> than I would have expected.
>

Not sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for
function application.
Neither does Haskell.
Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application.
Scheme pronounces it 'apply'.   Haskell pronounces it '$'

This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:

Close because if we have
foo x = 2*x

we can write

Prelude> foo  $ (2+5)
14

or

Prelude> foo  (2+5)
14

Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized' to

foo$x = 2*x
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20151222/a24b72d5/attachment.html>