i guess this might be of interest to some.
http://fpcomplete.com/the-downfall-of-imperative-programming/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/s112h/the_downfall_of_imperative_programming_functional/
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:28:01 +0200
Mirko Pilger wrote:
> i guess this might be of interest to some.
Yes, it is...and I wonder if D's FP features are good enough? Author
mentions D, but says:"...This is all good, but not enough..."
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Everyone is forced to act helplessly acc
On 4/9/2012 3:28 PM, Mirko Pilger wrote:
i guess this might be of interest to some.
http://fpcomplete.com/the-downfall-of-imperative-programming/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/s112h/the_downfall_of_imperative_programming_functional/
I would counter a flow based programming
I like functional languages, but the only one that seems to
have much support is F#.
I've used TBB Flow Graph in C++ and found it to be a major
improvement over straight parallel algorithms/tasks/message
passing etc which seem to be the norm(like in D). Expressing
dependencies between se
* Sean Cavanaugh [2012-04-09 16:09:03 -0500]:
> On 4/9/2012 3:28 PM, Mirko Pilger wrote:
> >i guess this might be of interest to some.
> >
> >http://fpcomplete.com/the-downfall-of-imperative-programming/
> >
> >http://www.reddit
Am Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:50:32 +1200
schrieb James Miller :
> Slightly OT: With the unstoppable march of parallel programming, does
> anybody else find node.js incredibly infuriating, since it is
> single-core.
Don't blame the library. EcmaScript was designed to be single-core. I imagine
that web
On Monday, 9 April 2012 at 20:22:30 UTC, Mirko Pilger wrote:
http://fpcomplete.com/the-downfall-of-imperative-programming/
---
All data is immutable. All functions are pure. You might think
this is crazy — how can you program with such stifling
restrictions? It turns out that people have been
* Marco Leise [2012-04-10 05:57:52 +0200]:
> Am Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:50:32 +1200
> schrieb James Miller :
>
> > Slightly OT: With the unstoppable march of parallel programming, does
> > anybody else find node.js incredibly infuriating, since it is
> > single-core.
>
> Don't blame the library. Ec
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 10:38:28 UTC, James Miller wrote:
* Marco Leise [2012-04-10 05:57:52 +0200]:
Am Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:50:32 +1200
schrieb James Miller :
> Slightly OT: With the unstoppable march of parallel
> programming, does
> anybody else find node.js incredibly infuriating, s
No really.
Scala, Clojure and Ocaml also do have quite industry support already.
Actually on my job, any client would pick one of those over D, as they
are slowly being accepted in enterprise projects.
A curious fact is that the FP fans have much to thank to Microsoft, as
it is the company with
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:06:37 +0200
Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Scala, Clojure and Ocaml also do have quite industry support already.
How does the GUI world of Ocaml look like?
Sincerely,
Gour
--
According to the three modes of material nature and the work
associated with them, the four divisions o
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 16:30:34 UTC, Gour wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:06:37 +0200
Paulo Pinto wrote:
Scala, Clojure and Ocaml also do have quite industry support
already.
How does the GUI world of Ocaml look like?
Sincerely,
Gour
GTK
Two quite interesting points to make here:
1. OCaml has a GIL and so, like CPython (*), is forced to use operating
system processes to obtain parallelism. Also OCaml has imperative
features, it is not a pure functional language. Clojure followed this
route as well, using STM to deal with locking
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:01:07 +0200
"bls" wrote:
> GTK
Then, D is better even in that regard. ;)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice,
O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion —
at that time I descend Myself.
http://atmaram
Microsoft is taking a careful approach with F# in what concerns
GUIs.
Actually they are promoting C# or VB.NET code for the GUI part,
while
leaving all the business code for F#.
This approach seems to cater more for the business audience, as to
have the GUI also written in F#.
--
Paulo
On T
My favourite FP language is Haskell, but I doubt most "code
monkeys"
will ever be able to grasp it, while impure ones are more
approachable
in enterprise environments.
The issues you point out are actually more implementation
issues than language related, right?
--
Paulo
On Tuesday, 10 April 20
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:19:13 +0200
"Paulo Pinto" wrote:
> My favourite FP language is Haskell, but I doubt most "code
> monkeys" will ever be able to grasp it, while impure ones are more
> approachable in enterprise environments.
That's right...I tried with Haskell, liked its syntax a lot, but w
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 20:46 +0200, Gour wrote:
[...]
> That's right...I tried with Haskell, liked its syntax a lot, but was not
> sure I really grokked monads. Moreover, I lost few potential
[...]
The biggest problems with monads are that most imperative programmers
think they are some massive hig
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:13:45 +0100
Russel Winder wrote:
> The biggest problems with monads are that most imperative programmers
> think they are some massive high magic that is incomprehensible to
> mere mortals, and most functional programmers think they are simple
> and that they understand th
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 21:22 +0200, Gour wrote:
[...]
> In any case, as it is often said, I got a feeling that despite its
> potential cleanliness, the real-world Haskell code was not so readable.
That probably comes down to familiarity and personal taste.
> By deploying some coding discipline, we
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:02:03 +0100
Russel Winder wrote:
> Hummm... the really core issue is whether the language supports tail
> call optimization. Functional programming languages demand it, C,
> C++, Java, Go, Python definitely don't have it, D...
Isn't it because they have to use recursion i
On 4/10/12 3:02 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Hummm... the really core issue is whether the language supports tail
call optimization. Functional programming languages demand it, C, C++,
Java, Go, Python definitely don't have it, D...
D has only the tail recursion, not the tail call. The latter shou
On 10-04-2012 23:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/10/12 3:02 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Hummm... the really core issue is whether the language supports tail
call optimization. Functional programming languages demand it, C, C++,
Java, Go, Python definitely don't have it, D...
D has only the ta
Russel Winder:
On the JVM the interesting question is whether Clojure finally
makes Lisp a mainstream language outside of one or two domains.
Clojure contains some interesting programming language design
ideas.
I have written enough Scheme that now I am sure I don't like to
write S-expressio
On 11.04.2012 1:04, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 10-04-2012 23:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/10/12 3:02 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Hummm... the really core issue is whether the language supports tail
call optimization. Functional programming languages demand it, C, C++,
Java, Go, Python de
On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 17:19:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
I am a fan of declarative expression, I prefer functional
approaches
over explicitly imperative ones. For the moment though using
single
assignment in imperative languages with all the lambda/closure
technology and using functiona
The Haskell version of Romans, rubies and D:
Modified version of http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Roman_numerals
so that it's compile time.
>8>8
module Romans where
import Language.Haskell.TH
import Maybe
roman :: String -> ExpQ
roman s = retu
* Russel Winder [2012-04-10 21:02:03 +0100]:
> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 21:22 +0200, Gour wrote:
> [...]
> > In any case, as it is often said, I got a feeling that despite its
> > potential cleanliness, the real-world Haskell code was not so readable.
>
> That probably comes down to familiarity and
James Miller:
I wish I could love Haskell, and for pure computer science,
it's fine, amazing even, but for real-world programming,
it just doesn't cut it.
Haskell contains some ideas worth copying even in non-functional
languages (or in mixed languages as D).
Enforced purity and immutabili
On 04/10/2012 12:06 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
A curious fact is that the FP fans have much to thank to Microsoft, as
it is the company with more FP research on their paychecks. Many open
source fans are not aware that a few of the main developers in the Ocaml
and Haskell communities, work for Micro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:04:16 +1200
James Miller wrote:
> I wish I could love Haskell, and for pure computer science, it's fine,
> amazing even, but for real-world programming, it just doesn't cut it.
> The concepts are too difficult and not explained well enough, code
> rapidly becomes unreadable
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:14:37 +0200
"bearophile" wrote:
> Haskell contains some ideas worth copying even in non-functional
> languages (or in mixed languages as D).
What do you miss in D from Haskell?
Sincerely,
Gour
--
To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants,
as well as to re
Gour:
What do you miss in D from Haskell?
It's written a bit below in my post:
lazy immutable lists, pattern matching, tuples and their
various unpacking syntax, list comprehension, structural
algebraic types, built-in currying and partial application
I am about to write a post about one o
* bearophile [2012-04-12 15:14:37 +0200]:
> James Miller:
>
> >I wish I could love Haskell, and for pure computer science, it's
> >fine, amazing even, but for real-world programming,
> >it just doesn't cut it.
>
> Haskell contains some ideas worth copying even in non-functional
> languages (or
Well, all these guys seem to disagree with you about using
Haskell in
real-world programming
http://corp.galois.com/
http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/index.htm
http://blog.tupil.com/
--
Paulo
On Thursday, 12 April 2012 at 11:04:06 UTC, James Miller wrote:
* Russel Winder [2012-04-10 21:02:03
+010
On Thursday, 12 April 2012 at 13:36:41 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 04/10/2012 12:06 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
A curious fact is that the FP fans have much to thank to
Microsoft, as
it is the company with more FP research on their paychecks.
Many open
source fans are not aware that a few of th
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 April 2012 at 13:36:41 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
[...]
> >Microsoft has also in recent years been very aggressive with their
> >patent portfolio, rattling their saber at Linux and suing Android
> >distributors.
>
> An
On 04/12/2012 11:02 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
And yet IBM still is the number one champion in patents.
Or just, because they play nice most of the time with open source they
are excused?
I don't know why you are talking about IBM. Maybe you should reread my
post. I'm talking about Microsoft bec
38 matches
Mail list logo
