User loginNavigation |
archivesBack to the future...So if Java is a victory for Smalltalk’s implementation choices, and Ruby is a victory for Smalltalk’s language choices, what do you do if you want both? There’s still only one option: use Smalltalk. You be the judge. Frege's Contribution to Philosophy of Language
Frege's Contribution to Philosophy of Language. Richard G. Heck and Robert May. Forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by E. Lepore and B. Smith.
An investigation of Frege's various contributions to the study of language, focusing on three of his most famous doctrines: that concepts are unsaturated, that sentences refer to truth-values, and that sense must be distinguished from reference. Warning: This isn't directly related to programming languages. In fact, if you haven't studied Frege this paper might be quite puzzling. While not directly programming language related, I still think this paper might be of interest. Frege is quite an important figure in the history of logic, of course, and as we all know logic and computation are very much related to each other. In addition, this paper deals with the notions of function and predicate, and these notions are part of our standard terminology. Reading this paper might improve our understanding of these notions and their history, as well as the notions of equality vs. identity, and intensional vs. extensional view of functions (see the end of section 4). CPS without GC?I am steadily growing frustrated with the programming languages and more importantly their implementations that I use both at work and at home. I won't bore you with why. So I thought I'd have a go at creating a language and RTL that I would like to use. Personally, I happen to think OO is greatly overrated and prefer a functional/procedural approach and would probably prefer to use CPS for the implementation but would rather shy away from the complexities of garbage collection. But as far as I can tell it seems impossible to implement continuation passing style (and closures, of course) without garbage collection. Correct? (I can tell as I write this that anyone responding is just going to say 'GC has decades of research behind it and these days can be extremely efficient while remaining relatively simple. What's the problem?' so rather than explain why I don't want GC perhaps my question can be taken as a hypothetical inquiry. :)) Is this a new programming paradigmI am implementing a new language whose fundamental blocks are two structures called "Connect" and "Signal". The "Signal" carries the data from one connect to another. A Connect takes a signal as an input and gives another signal as the output.The behaviour of the connect depends on the following things: Can i call this a new way of doing things, a paradigm? |
Browse archivesActive forum topics |
Recent comments
23 weeks 3 hours ago
23 weeks 7 hours ago
23 weeks 7 hours ago
45 weeks 1 day ago
49 weeks 3 days ago
51 weeks 15 hours ago
51 weeks 15 hours ago
1 year 1 week ago
1 year 6 weeks ago
1 year 6 weeks ago