> Anyway, here’s fizz buzz in pure lambda calculus:
Serious question: if the code is legit and can't be simplified any shorter (like you could in any C style lang), can we consider lambda calculus the string theory of programming? By that I mean lots of work for little gain (as it turned out to be nowadays) ((I know it has gains in other fields)).
I can imagine it like an assembly like compile target and it can explain the verboseness.
Oh, it definitely can be simplified a bunch. There's all sorts of stuff to prune out. I didn't even attempt to try and code golf at all. There's library definitions included in that snippet that probably aren't needed.
Serious question: if the code is legit and can't be simplified any shorter (like you could in any C style lang), can we consider lambda calculus the string theory of programming? By that I mean lots of work for little gain (as it turned out to be nowadays) ((I know it has gains in other fields)).
I can imagine it like an assembly like compile target and it can explain the verboseness.