We always say that Haskell is named for Haskell Curry because his work provided the
logical/computational foundations for the language. How exactly is this the case? Specifically, does anyone claim that Curry's combinatorial logic is more relevant to the theoretical foundations of Haskell than e.g. Church's lambda calculus? If not, why isn't Haskell called "Alonzo"? ;-) Mike _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
On 7/18/07, Michael Vanier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We always say that Haskell is named for Haskell Curry because his work provided the > logical/computational foundations for the language. How exactly is this the case? Specifically, > does anyone claim that Curry's combinatorial logic is more relevant to the theoretical foundations > of Haskell than e.g. Church's lambda calculus? If not, why isn't Haskell called "Alonzo"? ;-) I'd guess it's because Haskell is a language that provides type inference, and Curry's logic is implicitly typed, whereas Church's typed lambda calculus is typed explicitly. (Why no Haskell compilers' intermediate languages are named "Alonzo" is left as an exercise for the reader :-) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier* catamorphism.org *Often in error, never in doubt "Base eight is just like base ten, really... if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
In reply to this post by Michael Vanier
Michael Vanier <[hidden email]> writes:
> We always say that Haskell is named for Haskell Curry > because his work provided the logical/computational > foundations for the language. How exactly is this the case? > Specifically, does anyone claim that Curry's combinatorial > logic is more relevant to the theoretical foundations of > Haskell than e.g. Church's lambda calculus? At the time the name was chosen, SK combinators had been one of the main ways of implementing lazy functional languages. Although they had already been supplanted by compilation to more general combinators, some form of combinators were still part of the compilation process, so the connexion with combinatory logic was fresh in our minds. > If not, why isn't Haskell called "Alonzo"? ;-) I think that was one of the suggestions made among many others. Haskell has the advantage of sounding less like a person's name (which might have been why Curry didn't like it). -- Jón Fairbairn [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
In reply to this post by Tim Chevalier
On 19 Jul 2007, at 03:40, Tim Chevalier wrote: > On 7/18/07, Michael Vanier <[hidden email]> wrote: >> We always say that Haskell is named for Haskell Curry because his >> work provided the >> logical/computational foundations for the language. How exactly >> is this the case? Specifically, >> does anyone claim that Curry's combinatorial logic is more >> relevant to the theoretical foundations >> of Haskell than e.g. Church's lambda calculus? If not, why isn't >> Haskell called "Alonzo"? ;-) > > I'd guess it's because Haskell is a language that provides type > inference, and Curry's logic is implicitly typed, whereas Church's > typed lambda calculus is typed explicitly. (Why no Haskell compilers' > intermediate languages are named "Alonzo" is left as an exercise for > the reader :-) On the hand, Marcin Benke's compiler for the Agda 2 dependently typed programming language is called Alonzo. But it uses an intermediate language named after Curry... Dependent type systems rely on having a bit more type information around (although not usually on a lambda, if you set things up well), so the connection with Church is perhaps more appropriate. Cheers Conor _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
In reply to this post by Jon Fairbairn
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
If not, why isn't Haskell called "Alonzo"? ;-)I think that was one of the suggestions made among many others. Haskell has the advantage of sounding less like a person's name (which might have been why Curry didn't like it) Actually, the more compelling reason we chose "Haskell" over "Alonzo" was that, at the time, Church was alive -- he died in 1995 -- whereas Curry was not -- he died in 1982. We felt uncomfortable naming the language after someone who still alive (however odd that may sound). -Paul _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
Paul Hudak <[hidden email]> writes:
> Actually, the more compelling reason we chose "Haskell" > over "Alonzo" was that, at the time, Church was alive -- > he died in 1995 -- whereas Curry was not -- he died in > 1982. We felt uncomfortable naming the language after > someone who still alive (however odd that may sound). Oh yes. I had forgotten that. -- Jón Fairbairn [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |