About "the -notation of Church" [sic] (6)

1 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-04 04:44 ID:yxuMaIae This thread was merged from the former /code/ board. You can view the archive here.

> To use functions as arguments, one needs a notation for functions, and it seemed natural to use the -notation of Church (1941). I didn't understand the rest of his book, so I wasn't tempted to try to implement his more general mechanism for defining functions. Church used higher order functionals instead of using conditional expressions. Conditional expressions are much more readily implemented on computers.
- John McCarthy (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/node2.html)

Is this the final proof that LISP is not a FP language?

2 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-04 14:19 ID:K0ls67Vw

reminder that "lisp genius" john mccarthy didn't even implement lambda correctly

3 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-04 18:30 ID:dCis9hEe

Please don't shout `Lisp'. It's no longer the 50s.

4 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-04 23:37 ID:OL4CQL8Y

It's called the hat calculus. McCarthy didn't have the Unicode emoji for hat when he wrote that paper. Lambda is literally a ``worse is better'' printer's error.

5 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-17 19:51 ID:OupIvYgF

Fart calculus

6 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2017-04-17 22:00 ID:B+bBEK9E

Loser's Intensely Shitty Programming

Return Entire thread Last 50 posts
Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: