How about the following papers on real-world Haskell programming results: ----- text follows immediately after this line ----- Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs. ... An Experiment in Software Prototyping Productivity (1994), by Paul Hudak and Mark P. Jones: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/41732.html
Why Functional Programming Matters (1984), by John Hughes: http://www.md.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html Why Haskell matters (date unknown) (Web page), originally by Sebastian Sylvan: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Why_Haskell_matters ----- text ends immediately before this line ----- The following resource page may also be useful: Haskell in industry: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry The following site may also be useful: Commercial Users of Functional Programming: Functional Programming As a Means, Not an End: http://cufp.galois.com/ Barring time constraints, I may post additional findings later. Benjamin L. Russell --- PR Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, keep the tips coming. I like the ones about > the type safety > and line counts. > Cheers, > Paul > At 23:33 04/02/2008, you wrote: > >Good luck with this - I'd love to see the outcome. > > > >My experience is that FP tends to result in a lot > less code, so if > >there are x > >bugs per line of code, FP has less bugs per > complete application. > > > >Talking about haskell, the typesystem dissalows > whole classes of bugs. Things > >simply do not compile if you stitch the innards > together in the wrong order > >(particuarly if you are agressive about using the > most general types > >possible). Since this accounts for perhaps 90% of > where I do things wrong in > >Java, I get a corresponding decrease in run-time > bugs in haskell. However, > >this is somewhat compensated for by the effort > needed to get haskell programs > >through the compiler in the first place - debug at > compile or debug at > >runtime is the tradeoff here. > > > >FP is easier to verify mechanically than imperative > programming - more of the > >logic is exposed directly. It's easier to do > by-case proofs, even if they are > >by-hand rather than mechanical. > > > >However, all of this is annecdotal. Good luck > collecting real stats, or > >peer-reviewed annecdotes. You may have luck looking > at bug-fix times vs > >number of developers for equivalent FP and Java > apps/libs. Worth a shot, > >given that the bug-trackers tend to be public. You > could probably tie it back > >to the size of the 'fix' patches. Get some nice > graphs? > > > >Matthew > > > >On Monday 04 February 2008, you wrote: > > > Hi folks > > > I'm thinking of writing a little essay arguing > the case for the > > > advantages of FP for producing quality software. > Can the list > > > recommend any papers/articles which I can use as > sources of my > > > argument? I have access to the IEEE database too > although earlier I > > > couldn't find anything on the subject. > > > Thanks, Paul > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > > > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
