[Dynamite] July (attn Ewan)

[Ewan Birney]

On Tue, 23 May 2000, Guy Slater wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Ian Holmes wrote:
> 
> > yeah... i really want the dynamite language to *look* like a functional
> > programming language, but without having to do significantly more coding
> > ;)
> 


<grin>. Now I (vaguely) understand what you guys are talking about I
realise that I don't think that this is "what" dynamite/telegraph is.
Dynamite/telegraph is quite a tight language for quite a tight problem.
Even the parts which look like reasonably arbitary maths (ie, calc lines)
are actually in real-life restricted to quite a small set of
possibilities.

In other words - my prejudice is that functional languages specification
problems cannot get you that far as they too will have difficulty in
expressing what is going on.


> It reckon it would probably require less coding in space, but more in time.
> 
> Anyway, I suppose the existing dynamite is kind of a functional language.
> Well, it isn't imperative.  Hmmm.

It could be imperative. I think.

No - wait - the natural thing for dynamite is to be declaritive. Really
prolog is the best (existing) language for this. I think.

confused again (doh!)

> --
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dynamite mailing list  -  Dynamite@bioperl.org
> http://www.bioperl.org/mailman/listinfo/dynamite
>