From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonathan Yavner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:51:29 -0500 Message-ID: <200601291251.32808.jyavner@member.fsf.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138558715 31751 80.91.229.2 (29 Jan 2006 18:18:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:18:35 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 29 19:18:32 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3H8A-0002aw-Bk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:18:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3HB5-0006S4-4Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:21:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3Gl6-0007dZ-GO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:40 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3Gl4-0007cL-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3Gl4-0007cD-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [216.148.227.154] (helo=rwcrmhc14.comcast.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F3GjE-0003Oo-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:52:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.0.254] (c-68-45-81-14.hsd1.nj.comcast.net[68.45.81.14]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20060129175135m1400llpk1e>; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:51:35 +0000 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49685 Archived-At: > This may amuse some of the readers of this mailing list. While > browsing the Wikipedia entry on lambda calculus, I saw that some wit > had written: > More archaic Lisps, such as Emacs Lisp, still use dynamic binding, > and so are not based on the lambda calculus. Rather, they are > based on the syntax of the lambda calculus, together with a > misunderstanding of the notion of binding and substitution in the > lambda calculus. Okay, I'll bite. I slapped an {{NPOV}} sticker on that section ("failure to maintain neutral point of view"). Would anyone who cares about such things please edit my complaint for correctness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lambda_calculus#Programming_languages | The section on programming languages seems to be POV. It refers to | Emacs Lisp but not ALGOL 60 as "archaic" (only Emacs Lisp is still in | use). It incorrectly lauds Common Lisp as lacking dynamic binding (all | Lisps need dynamic binding, which CL calls "special variables"). The | claim that binding in Lisps don't match the lambda calculus because | their authors "misunderstand" the calculus (rather than because the | calculus in pure form has poor efficiency) is just a damn lie.