RFD: comp.lang.dysfunctional

Date: 8 Apr 1995 22:08:10 GMT

Request for Discussion (RFD)

Newsgroup       : comp.lang.dysfunctional
Status          : unmoderated
Distribution    : Worldwide
Summary         : For discussion of dysfunctional languages
Proponent       : John Raucous, (jraucous@sjrl.ibm.com)

This is a formal Request For Discussion on the creation of an unmoderated newsgroup, comp.lang.dysfunctional.

This RFD has been posted in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroup Creation. Its language is based on previously submitted RFDs. The RFD is being cross-posted to the following relevant news groups:

        news.announce.newgroups
        news.groups
        alt.lang.basic
        alt.lang.teco
        alt.lang.s-lang
        comp.lang.cobol

It is also being sent to the following mailing lists:

	Dysfunctional Languages Email Group (DLEG)

CHARTER

The comp.lang.dysfunctional newsgroup will be open to discussion on all aspects of dysfunctional computer languages. In contrast to functional computer languages in which all functions have well defined semantics and no side effects, a dysfunctional language can pass values only by side effect and semantics are implementation or user defined, if at all.

While specific dysfunctional computer languages such as BASIC, COBOL, or TECO arose quite early in the history of computing, it was not until the late 70s that theoretical interest in dysfunctional computing was awakened. Much of this research centered around the fact that the independence of a statement's effect from its local context allows dysfunctional languages to be well modeled by random walks following a Poisson distribution. John Raucous' 1977 AMI Turning Award Lecture, "Can Programming Be Liberated from Its Anal Retentive, Uptight Style?" also brought researchers upon the dysfunctional bandwagon.

The first language to be designed solely along dysfunctional lines was OK, developed by a team at NILS (National Institute for the Lack of Standards). OK allowed programmers to define the meaning of the statements in their programs, and then allowed the compiler to totally ignore this meaning. The early eighties produced REAGAN, which extended dysfunctional principles into a multitasking arena. In REAGAN, the primary process is always under the control of the secondary process, neither of which are allowed to communicate with any of the child processes. REAGAN processes never voluntarily give up control, but rather are forced to halt under a complex process known as "indictment."

Currently, the most popular dysfunctional language is BUNDY, best known for its unusual approach to garbage collection. Instead of deallocating garbage memory, BUNDY attempts to reuse it over and over again as many times as possible. Many commentators believe that BUNDY's popularity derives from its strong similarities to the C programming language.

RATIONALE

There is a large community of Internet users who either actively use dysfunctional languages or inflict them upon others. We believe they deserve a forum in which to rant, rave, theorize, and in general act in a dysfunctional manner towards each other.

Although employees of Microsoft and other corporations promoting the use of dysfunctional languages will be welcome and encouraged to use this newsgroup to disseminate important technical disinformation, it is important to note that there will be no official endorsement of this newsgroup by Microsoft Inc. or vice-versa, as such an aknowledgement would be in violation of the spirit of dysfunctional languages.

RELATED NEWSGROUPS

While there are a number of newsgroups related to the proposed newsgroup, none has the same scope. alt.lang.basic, alt.lang.teco, and comp.lang.cobol all discuss specific dysfunctional languages, and alt.lang.s-lang discusses Serge Lang, a dysfunctional mathematician.

FUTURE CALL FOR VOTES

After a discussion period of 21-30 days, if there are no overwhelming objections to the proposed group, there will be a Call For Votes (CFV) posted to the same groups as this RFD. The voting period will be at least 21 days. If the group passes by receiving 100 more YES votes than NO votes, and (at least) twice as many YES votes as NO votes, it will be created.