Content deleted Content added
m →Common Lisp: (contributors) |
→Expressiveness: advantages |
||
Line 15:
I have removed the following sentence from the article: "A non-strict programming language is more expressive than an otherwise equivalent strict language." This claim is patently false; all non-strict programs can be encoded in a strict language using explicit thunks. It may be true that certain programs can be expressed more succinctly in a non-strict language, but that doesn't make it more expressive — just more concise in certain situations (and less concise in others). --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
: Non-strictness is important for expression, but as we define a non-strict language as one where the programmer can define non-strict functions, a strict language can have non-strictness, and most do. It's hard to imagine an imperative language without non-strict parts, but what about a purely functional language? Without a non-strict if/cond function, you're in trouble. In a strict language, you can't define higher-level conditional statements. Same goes for thunks, you need a way to implement them in the first place. I think it would be fair to explain how in theory non-strictness makes a lot of sense. --[[User:TuukkaH|TuukkaH]] 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||