1. 4
  1.  

  2. 3

    This article is kind of a stub/advertisement for the textbook on the topic by the author, but I do appreciate the point of view expressed in the first page. I’ve found my theory of programming languages college class to be needlessly worried about taxonomy at the expense of accuracy. (For example Common Lisp was described as a purely “Functional Language,” but while you can write functional code in clisp, it also supports more imperative or OOP syles.)

    1. 2

      That looks like a sensible and enjoyable approach to teaching programming languages. I see in the article that the book is available online, free as in beer. Do submit that link, too!

      1. 1

        Thanks! I’ll do that (probably after at least skimming it)