Re: [Haskell-beginners] Doubts about functional programming paradigm

22 Dec 2015

      On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant  wrote:
...
On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody"  wrote:
...
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs 
wrote:
...
Mr. McIlroy,
FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It
sounds like an amazing experience.
No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened
About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors of
SICP!)
http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html
Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more profound
than I would have expected.
Not sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for
function application.
Neither does Haskell.
Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application.
Scheme pronounces it 'apply'.   Haskell pronounces it '$'

This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:

Close because if we have
foo x = 2*x

we can write

Prelude> foo  $ (2+5)
14

or

Prelude> foo  (2+5)
14

Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized' to

foo$x = 2*x