Are applicative languages inefficient?

Authors:
Carl G. Ponder;Patrick McGeer;Anthony P-C. Ng
Affiliations:
University of California, Berkeley;University of California, Berkeley;University of California, Berkeley
Venue:
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Year:
1988

Citing 6
Cited 3

Programming in Prolog (2nd ed.)

Programming in Prolog (2nd ed.)
Programmming languages: design and implementation (2nd ed.)

Programmming languages: design and implementation (2nd ed.)
The art of computer programming, volume 1 (3rd ed.): fundamental algorithms

The art of computer programming, volume 1 (3rd ed.): fundamental algorithms
The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching

The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching
Can programming be liberated from the von Neumann style?: a functional style and its algebra of programs

Communications of the ACM
The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms

The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms

Real-time deques, multihead Turing machines, and purely functional programming

FPCA '93 Proceedings of the conference on Functional programming languages and computer architecture
Lazy functional state threads

PLDI '94 Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1994 conference on Programming language design and implementation
Linear logic and permutation stacks—the Forth shall be first

ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News - Special issue: panel sessions of the 1991 workshop on multithreaded computers

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Side-effects are forbidden in applicative languages like Prolog [3], FP [2], pure Lisp [9], and SISAL [8]. Algorithms can often be reformulated applicatively with no loss of efficiency. It is not known whether this is always the case. Here are seven problems which have been resistant to efficient reformulation. The reader is invited to produce an efficient applicative program or lower-bound argument for any of these.