3 ms·

So you list one shortcoming, and don't even cover the position that lambda calculus is better suited as a foundation for a programming language despite not bein

by jolux 10y ago

So you list one shortcoming, and don't even cover the position that lambda calculus is better suited as a foundation for a programming language despite not being better at time complexity than a Turing machine would be? http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21705/what-is-the-contribution-of-lambda-calculus-to-the-field-of-theory-of-computatio http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21705/what-is-th... My point is basically made here: This algebraic view of computation relates naturally to programming languages used in practise, and much language development can be understood as the search for, and investigation of novel program composition operators.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
This is the usual response. I didn't say the algebraic approach does not have advantages but the complexity analysis issue is always swept under the rug by proponents of the algebraic approach. Operational and axiomatic semantics also have their place and if the theoreticians haven't yet settled on "the one true way" why is it that regular programmers think they have? I agree that the search for novel composition mechanisms is a prominent goal of PL theory and research but it is not the only one.
- jolux 10y ago
  Fair enough. I'll agree that their is no "one true way" and contest whether it's likely there is one, however I do think I understand the frustration some theoreticians have with the mainstream of programming when their contributions to programming language theory through denotational semantics, type theory, monads, etc have been largely ignored for the close to thirty years in favor of recycling the same tired dialects of Algol over and over again.