> Looking at the FAQ I now remember that not only is IP mostly |
> obvious stuff it is also patented technology. Yuck.
The patents in the FAQ make interesting reading.
What sort of program would violate the patent?
says you shouldn't be able to patent a mathematical theorem,
it's kind of like patenting nature.
If functional languages start getting used then programs
will be more like mathematical theorems which shouldn't be
The multi-language of .NET has great potential.
I hope Microsoft actually gets people to start using functional languages
then they would be sort of redeemed in my eyes,
but right now .NET is just a Java look alike contest and not so interesting.
With C# and VB.NET history just repeats itself....
but generating incompatibilities along the way.
Perhaps Microsoft can put its monopoly power to good use and
bring formal methods and research into the mainstream.
If Microsoft uses its
patents as a cudgle then it will definitely be
Aspect-Oriented Compilers paper you posted had an EOPL-like clarity to it. Putting together a sort of web anthology of papers and tutorials that extend EOPL, dealing with topics that EOPL doesn't cover in languages it doesn't use like Haskell and ML, but using the same simple examples and style would be cool.