News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What's new in purely functional data structures since Okasaki? (2010). Parent comment

Re:What's new in purely functional data structures since Oka... by hellofunk on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:09AM (#11058472)
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a language or compiler engineer so my sight wasn't big enough. I tend to think of a new language as a gigantic library sitting on top of another language, and just assumed that if the base language can't handle something like a persistent data structure, then the new language would struggle with that as well.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's new in purely functional data structures since Oka... by dkersten on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:57AM (#11058773)
Only a very small handful of languages are actually implemented like this.

Its worth also pointing out that some languages that compile to C, still support features that C does not (for example, Chicken Scheme compiles to C and supports both garbage collection and continuations, neither of which C supports natively).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's new in purely functional data structures since Oka... by masklinn on Monday February 08, 2016 @11:36AM (#11059072)
> for example, Chicken Scheme compiles to C and supports both garbage collection and continuations, neither of which C supports natively

And GHC still allows compiling Haskell (lazy, functional, garbage-collected) via C (eager, procedural, manually managed).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's new in purely functional data structures since Oka... by kazagistar on Monday February 08, 2016 @10:41AM (#11058670)
That is almost never an accurate way to think about it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's new in purely functional data structures since Oka... by autoreleasepool on Monday February 08, 2016 @09:39PM (#11062698)
> I tend to think of a new language as a gigantic library sitting on top of another language

That's a bad default assumption

[ Parent | on HN ]