Re: MLton's GC

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Stephen J. Bevan wrote:

> George Neuner <gneuner2/@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > However, Dylan is still a Scheme is still a Lisp.
> 
> Aren't all functional languages a Lisp then?

Dylan really did start out as a more conventional lisp, and then the 
syntax changed. There are plenty of functional languages that didn't 
descend from lisp though - notably the descendants of ISWIM. Naturally the

lambda calculus predates both.

> Or is there something
> different about some functional languages (Haskell?) which makes their
> GC requirements different?
> 

As functional languages go, lisps take pure functional programming the 
least seriously - having lots of definitely-immutable data around does 
change the game a little, especially in the presence of concurrency.

-- 
flippa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"My religion says so" explains your beliefs. But it doesn't explain
why I should hold them as well, let alone be restricted by them.