Talk:SAC programming language

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Are these the same?

• SA-C programming language: "Single Assignment C (SA-C) ...."
• SAC programming language: "SAC (Single Assignment C) ...."

.... although the homepage links are different:

• SA-C homepage
• The SAC Home Page

So if they are different, it might be an idea to put Disambiguation links in.

129.67.18.125 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article duplicates the statement (from the website) that SaC is a functional language while strictly speaking it is not. The major issue is that SaC allows the use of variables which is clearly a form of state while according to the "definition" of functional languages here on wikipedia is the first golden rule for a functional language. It might be a good idea to make it clear that SaC can convert its syntax into a functional description but the description itself is not strictly functional (although perhaps applicative). Addendum: SaC does not have a notion of global state but only local state, this is indeed like a functional language, although the use of c-like 'variables' is more of the 'syntactic sugar'. Cyberwizzard (talk)

• Since it does not have closures (which I assume is what is meant by "higher-order functions [...] are not (yet) supported by SAC" (which I believe is incorrect, since even plain C supports higher-order functions, in the form of function pointers)), I think it doesn't really qualify as functional. 201.35.78.190 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply