4 ms·
> Isn't every existing programming language eventually based on (or at least traceable to) lambda calculus? Not really. FP has an obvious connection to lambda
by ebingdom 5y ago
> Isn't every existing programming language eventually based on (or at least traceable to) lambda calculus?
Not really. FP has an obvious connection to lambda calculus. Many OOP languages don't even have a straightforward notion of "function", which is what lambda calculus is all about.
- Rochus 5y agoDid you have a look at e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Objects-Monographs-Computer-Science/dp/0387947752 https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Objects-Monographs-Computer-Sc...?
- ebingdom 5y agoYes, that's one of the most prominent in a long line of attempts at creating formal models of OOP. And in the preface, you'll find: > There is a well-established theory of functions, the λ-calculus, ... However, our theory of objects is self-contained; it is the first that does not require explicit reference to functions or procedures. So that answers your question in the negative and proves my point: no, not every language is based on lambda calculus.
- Rochus 5y agoThere are also different "schools of thought" for functional programming. That in itself is not a bad thing. The thread was about formal definitions; such are therefore available for those who need them.
- Rochus 5y ago> Not really See e.g. Landin, P. J. (1965): A Correspondence between ALGOL 60 and Church's Lambda-notation.