Hacker News Reader

Comment by snrji | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I agree. But in the article I shared, they say that this goal-oriented language would be somehow "imperative" in the sense that you would be telling to the computer concrete things to do, just from a (much) higher abstraction level.

View on HN

The C2 page is a wiki (the orginal). The page contains several viewpoints by different authors. Among them is the view that the division into a 2x2 table is incomplete/incorrect/of-limited-utility. For me, the relationship of declarative languages to the ordinary usage of "goal" is much stronger (for me at least) than the vague terms used to create the 2x2 table. To put it another way, I find the premise dubious. For me, it is useful to keep in mind the truth table of conditional statements in modal logic:

   a -> b
           b = T     b = F
         +--------+--------+
   a = T |   T    |    F   |
         +--------+--------+
   a = F |   T    |    T   |
         +--------+--------+

For me, the statement about there being some fourth category is trivially true because the division into two categories is false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com