Talk:Lazy K

This article sucks
The Wikipedia article is way better. Can someone expand on this? --Graue 20:27, 21 Aug 2005 (GMT)


 * Since this article no longer sucks and the Wikipedia one does, I suggest we remove this comment. --Nthern 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Lazy K?
I don't understand the interest in this language at all, since SKI-calculus is already well-known. Also, if an SK-based Turing tarpit is wanted, why not just do the obvious and eliminate the I from SKI; e.g, as I noted at Talk:Combinatory logic, an SK-calculus can be concisely defined as follows (noting that right-parentheses are superfluous):

Syntax -- ::= 'K' | 'S' | '('

Operational Semantics (as rewrite-rules) For any expressions x, y, z, ((Kxy  --> x (((Sxyz --> ((xz(yz

--r.e.s. (Talk) 23:13, 21 Aug 2005 (GMT)


 * Lazy K provides a way to have input and output that's "nicer" than Unlambda. In fact, this language is pretty much all about combining SKI, Unlambda, Iota and Jot, then adding input and cleaning up. It wasn't really designed to be too "esoteric" but is still "esoteric enough" to be an esolang. --Ihope127 01:07, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)