Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I have read a paper discussing von Neuman style programming. The paper’s name is Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs
My question about the functional Style programming languange (refered by the author John Backus) is this:
Is the functional Style in this paper exactly or approxiately meaning the same things when we refer that of function programming language like HASKELL or ERLANG?
Here is a helpful blog post: Why concatenative programming matters.
In short, these are two different techniques. Wikipedia calls them Functional Programming and Function-Level Programming respectively. Also there are Point-Free of Tacit Programming, Concatenative Languages and Stack-Oriented Languages – so exact naming may vary depending on who you ask.
As the blog post points, functional (or applicative) languages (Erlang, Haskell, ML, Scheme) are poorly suited for function-level (or concatenative) programming. However, there is Pointless Haskell library to help writing function-level programs in Haskell. Note how type signatures for usual things such as an empty list differ from Prelude. The library can be installed from Hackage by cabal install pointless. See examples.
For relevant languages, see Forth, APL, Joy and Cat. The J language mentioned by Jorg is a descendant of APL and FP.