User loginNavigation 
SK Calculus not Consider SeKsy?
For my first post as editor I thought I'd bring up an observation of mine while perusing the literature. of what appears to be a lack of usage of the typed SK calculus in theoretical papers. In my studies I am very surprised it hasn't come up more often, since it is elegant, and easy to understand. I encountered the typed SK calculus first in Laufer and Odersky 1993. A web search for the phrase "typed SK calculus" yielded a brief usage on the Haskell Wiki in a discussion on Generalized Data Types. I first encountered the SK calculus without types when reading Brent Kerby's A Theory of Concatenative Combinators which is an informal examination of combinators in Joy. As a referesher, the typed SK calculus is made up of only two operations S and K: K : a > b > a S : (a > b > c) > (a > b) > a > c So the questions I am pondering are: why is the lambda calculus so much more popular? Is it because Scheme and other similar languages more closely resemble the lambda calculus? If there was a language based on the SK calculus, would it become more popular? I also wonder what applications there are for the SK calculus, and what place it should occupy in my programming language theory arsenal? By cdiggins at 20061201 04:26  LtU Forum  previous forum topic  next forum topic  other blogs  10001 reads

Browse archivesActive forum topics 
Recent comments
1 day 3 hours ago
1 day 4 hours ago
1 day 5 hours ago
4 days 7 hours ago
4 days 21 hours ago
6 days 33 min ago
6 days 2 hours ago
6 days 3 hours ago
6 days 4 hours ago
6 days 6 hours ago