On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:44:25 David Leimbach wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I meant the scalability and speed. An imperative solution should be > > simpler, more scalable and faster than any purely functional solution. > > That's a pretty strange comment. Why do you think an imperative solution > is simpler, faster and more scalable?
Mutation can avoid lots of unnecessary allocations and indirections with minimal risk of error in this case. > If functional programming can't provide any one of those, it's not worth > anything, I doubt programming paradigms live or die according to whether or not they can implement Conway's Game of Life simply and efficiently. > and based on the membership in this list, the interest in it > these days, and the fact that I've seen many occasions where functional > programming lends itself to a faster implementation (in terms of time to > implement and test) that's actually readable sooner than a lot of > imperative approaches... Of Conway's Game of Life? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe