>> I don't really understand all the graphics-related stuff that's 
>> happening, but the definition of rule 30 itself seems relatively 
>> straight-forward.
> 
> I just thought it seemed like a language where creating forms, graphics 
> and pixels was quite easy, without much need for boilerplate code.

Yeah, I'd need to sit down and learn the language syntax and how allthe 
UI stuff actually works. (Every UI system seemingly has its own entirely 
different event model and so forth...)

>> (I did briefly look at F# a while back, but abandoned it because it's 
>> not really functional.)
> 
> ...Wikipedia claims it is functional

People claim that Erlang is functional too. ;-) Hell, some people say 
Lisp is functional...

> But I'll believe you because I know almost nothing about this subject!

Heh. ;-)

In fairness, if F# was *actually* functional, it wouldn't run very well 
on the .NET runtime, nor interface with the .NET libraries. Both of 
these things are object-oriented, not functional. So there are some 
unavoidable design compromises to be made. If you accept that you're 
designing a language to fit in with a large monolithic OO system, 
there's a limit to how functional you can easily make it. So it's not 
like they just don't know how to design a functional language...

Post a reply to this message