First of all, all the languages he mentioned are functional programming languages, whereas C, C++, C# and so on are imperative or object-oriented. OO being more similar to imperative programming than to functional.
Functional languages tend to have very strict type-checking at compile-time, making type-errors more or less impossible.
Unfortunately, functional programming never made it into mainstream, it's popular only in universities. It's a very clean coding style, encourages to produce very well-structured programs and is way simpler than OO.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't Crusoe below 1 Watt when it's idle, and at 6 Watts at full load?
Very stupid comparison.
First of all, all the languages he mentioned are functional programming languages, whereas C, C++, C# and so on are imperative or object-oriented. OO being more similar to imperative programming than to functional.
Functional languages tend to have very strict type-checking at compile-time, making type-errors more or less impossible.
Unfortunately, functional programming never made it into mainstream, it's popular only in universities. It's a very clean coding style, encourages to produce very well-structured programs and is way simpler than OO.
it also was a more or less full rewrite