And then there’s Haskell which takes the whole thing a step further still.

Wait, what works in Haskell that doesn’t in Lisp, exactly? Are the spaces not just function composition?

Hmm, so this is starting to cross the Atlantic. Interesting.

As far as I can tell, because the EU is slow, and sanctioning the Russians and military suppliers of the Russians came first.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d count theoretical computer science as a subfield of math, and practical software engineering among the other engineerings on the harder side of the centre.

I wouldn’t say entrenched, because I think this is honestly the first time I’ve seen the two come up together outside of their shared name. I was surprised, but then again sometimes reality is surprising.

Both have function composition, and expressions which contain free variables in multiple places. At the time, that was just a shorthand for what they were trying to express about slight changes. A bit later, formal analysis was axiomised, and is full of infinite things like Cauchy sequences and general topology. In the 20th century, substitution of a composed function into free variables becomes an object of study of it’s own, and found to be able to produce full complexity without anything else being added, being Turing equivalent.

All the infinite and continuous stuff that makes calculus work, at least as it’s considered abstractly, doesn’t really translate into a discrete system. You can numerically approximate it, and I guess you could even use lambda calculus-like functional language to do that, but I’m not mad it never came up in my math courses, like in your original comment.

If there’s nothing more to add to that, I am sorry for wasting your time.

Putin, the successor of the guy that coup’d Gorbachev? Gorbachev who died heartbroken that Putin was attacking Ukraine?

But you repeat yourself.

/s, although Putin has some kind of weird extra influence.

So, I took it from these parts together:

and the common name for the conceptual underpinnings of computational theory.

the idea of function composition or continuous function theory (or even just computation as a concept) are all closely related with basic concepts from “calculus calculus” like limit theory and integral progression.

I’m still not seeing the connection otherwise.

I’m pretty sure the term was coined in the interwar era, so it’s kind of interesting if people are just calling the concept of functions “lambda calculus” now. Obviously they’re much older than that.

Is there some connection I’ve just been missing? It’s a pretty straight rewriting system, it seems Newton wouldn’t have had much use for it.

Lot’s of things get called “calculus”. Originally, calculus calculus was “the infinitesimal calculus” IIRC.

Lambda calculus has no relation to calculus calculus, though.

Data science is pure calculus, ground up and injected into your eyeballs

Lol, I like that. I mean, there’s more calculus-y things, but it’s kind of unusual in that you can’t really interpret the non-calculus aspects of a neural net.

That sounds like it might be a gift in disguise.

If you want to know how philosophy works, do sociology…

It’s kind of like a horseshoe with philosophy and math at the ends.

Can’t I at least have a sticker?

So is it just another database software at this point, then?

Or have real social problems that would require actual money or effort to solve, and are looking for an alternative.

In the Anglosphere, at least, word policing tends to be that. Same vibe as a company hiring a token female executive to be feminist.

It’s the bible verses on the side OP was focusing on.

I’d actually use some kind of projected future to define obsoleteness. Like, fossil fuels are obsolete relative to renewables, because there’s going to be more going forwards even though there’s more fossil fuels right now.

Athough, I have no idea if Mojo or Nim are going anywhere, and Brainfuck isn’t. Maybe there’s a dimension of novelty that’s also flattened into that axis.

Why? An assembler isn’t the same thing as a compiler. (Although, I’m not personally sure where the dividing line is. Where would literally just an assembler with loops instead of goto classify?)

The practice of directly using assembly is relatively obsolete. To bootstrap you might have to a bit, but writing Rollercoaster Tycoon in it was already an anachronism. I’m not really sure how to fit that into your analogy, because there’s no word-compilers in wide use. If voice-to-text had became that dominant, typing would be obsolete, I guess.

I see! So you’d say type safety is system-type feature, then?