Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:51:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <18-03-057@comp.compilers>
References: <6effed5e-6c90-f5f4-0c80-a03c61fd2127@gkc.org.uk> <18-03-042@comp.compilers> <18-03-049@comp.compilers>
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="74788"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: Lisp, history
Posted-Date: 13 Mar 2018 16:57:42 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2002

On 2018-03-13, William Clodius <w.clodius@icloud.com> wrote:
> Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> So to answer your hypothetical question: how would programming language
>> be different if the designers of Algol 60 had decided to put
>> implementation convenience above mathematical simplicity
>> and expressive power in the language? ...

> Didn't Lisp have first order functions and closures in 58?

No. It was dynamically scoped: locals were basically saved and restored
globals, so lambda didn't capture any enviornment.

Lambda Calculus (even typed and all) was already known, and the
researchers must have been aware of it, or where else would they
have cribbed "LAMBDA" from, right?

Legend has it that MacCarthy has at some point admitted that he didn't
properly understand Lambda Calculus during the early Lisp work; I don't
have a citation for that.