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?
Active forum topics
New forum topics