Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Monads in Scala, XSLT, Unix shell pipes was Re: Monads in ...

2005-11-28 Thread Gregory Woodhouse
 linking outputs to inputs;  
cross

your eyes a little and voila!  A dataflow network.


And I quite liked the data flow concept. That may be what I'm looking  
for, too, but I need to let it sink in a bit.



And if we're smart
enough to make a compiler do that, why bother the programmer?


Good question. In fact compiler design has really influenced my  
thinking here. We can eliminate tail recursion automatically, so why  
bother the programmer? Redundant reads from a provably unchanged  
variable can be eliminated, so why bother the programmer? We can even  
optimize (some) loops for parallel execution on a multiprocessor --  
something which is perhaps a bit more on point.



But
you're not talking about analyzing a function into a
parallel/concurrent/distributed implementation; rather, you're
interested in synthesizing a temporal process out of interacting
computations.


Not exactly. I'm thinking about them as dual aspects of the same  
problem: analysis and synthesis. You may recall that I suggested that  
programs for a distributed system might be compiled as a whole,  
much as a modern compiler might generate code capable of using the  
possibilities of parallelism in the target architecture. But it seems  
to me that a satisfactory theory ought to provide some insight into  
how the pieces fit together, too. Just knowing how to generate them  
isn't enough.


The temporal aspect won't go away.  And that's the problem.


I agree with you -- on both counts.


 -- Bill Wood




===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

And the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
-- T.S. Eliot




___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


[Haskell-cafe] Other languages using monads?

2005-11-24 Thread Gregory Woodhouse
My knowledge of functional programming is pretty much limited to  
Haskell, Scheme, and a smattering of Common Lisp. Are there languages  
other than Haskell that explicitly use monads? How about not so  
explicitly?


===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition.
--Carl Sagan


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


[Haskell-cafe] Two questions: lazy evaluation and Church-Rosser

2005-11-14 Thread Gregory Woodhouse
This is surely a dumb question, but where can I find a proof of the  
Church-Rosser theorem?


Now, a totally(?) separate question: I've been trying to do some  
background reading on lambda calculus, and have found discussions of  
strict evaluation strategies (call-by-value and  call-by-name) but  
have yet to find an appropriate framework for modeling lazy  
evaluation (much less infinite lists and comprehensions). Can anyone  
point me in the right direction?


===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Nothing is as powerful than an idea
whose time has come.
-- Victor Hugo



___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


[Haskell-cafe] Semantics for FP?

2005-11-14 Thread Gregory Woodhouse
First of all, I'm very new to Haskell (but very impressed). I  
remember having a lot of fun with Lisp as an undergrad, and recently  
started working with Scheme (and having a great time at it), and so I  
decided to look into Haskell. Like everyone else, I was totally  
impressed by the two line quicksort -- and hooked.


Unfortunately(?), though, FP seems to pose a bit of a challenge from  
a semantic point of view. I remember being very impressed with  
Dynamic Logic (Harel et al.), and it really changed my way of  
thinking about programming languages. But are Kripke structures even  
of any relevance to Haskell and FP? Well, in order to think it  
through, I've been experimenting with the idea of reduction providing  
the basic accessibility relation. That's why I've been asking  
seemingly off-topic questions about lambda calculus and C-R (well- 
definedness).

===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement
 of everyday thinking.  -- Albert Einstein



___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe