Since I asked the questions on this list, and now have the answers, I might as
well send them back to the list.
On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Barry MacKichan
wrote:
> Embedding code in documentation was only half of Knuth's Web (Wow! This dates
> back to when the word 'web' had no other meaning
Microsoft's take on reactive programming, LINQ-style.
(Includes a JavaScript implementation, among others..)
http://rx.codeplex.com/
And Netflix's Java implementation
http://techblog.netflix.com/search/label/FRP
https://github.com/Netflix/RxJava
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 02/25/2013 09:19 PM:
> Here's an example taken from YampaSynth, a domain-specific language for
> sound synthesis built using the concepts of Functional Reactive
> Programming. The pipeline is all in Haskell, all the way to the OpenAL
> output. (No cheating with an exter
Very interesting.
I have been using Docco to document a project in JavaScript, and this is an
interesting enhancement.
Embedding code in documentation was only half of Knuth's Web (Wow! This dates
back to when the word 'web' had no other meaning in software). The part I don't
see is the macro
On 2/25/13 5:31 PM, glen wrote:
You mean I wouldn't be allowed to listen to the smooth sounds of: echo
"main(t){for(t=0;;t++)putchar(t*((t>>9|t>>13)&25&t>>6));}" | gcc -xc -
&& ./a.out | aplay
I should not let this slip-by without acknowledging that this is a
functional program. +1 for that
On 2/25/13 5:31 PM, glen wrote:
mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote at 02/25/2013 02:57 PM:
Nope. Monads are a purely functional construct. A elegant generalization,
Arrows, enable one to construct Unix-style pipelines, but with typed
contracts. That is, imagine having a command shell that rejected as
mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote at 02/25/2013 02:57 PM:
> Nope. Monads are a purely functional construct. A elegant generalization,
> Arrows, enable one to construct Unix-style pipelines, but with typed
> contracts. That is, imagine having a command shell that rejected as bad
> syntax pipelines where
"That's fine, but it seems strange to promote a language because one of its
features lets you work around its primary objective."
Nope. Monads are a purely functional construct. A elegant generalization,
Arrows, enable one to construct Unix-style pipelines, but with typed
contracts. That is, im
That's fine, but it seems strange to promote a language because one of its
features lets you work around its primary objective.
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on how the F
Russ wrote:
"But it is (obviously) functional, which
means no side effects. The primary purpose of a language like JavaScript is
to produce side-effects that change the DOM and what is displayed by a
browser. How does Fay get around that seeming incompatibility in
objectives?"
Haskell deals with
Haskell is a wonderful language. But it is (obviously) functional, which
means no side effects. The primary purpose of a language like JavaScript is
to produce side-effects that change the DOM and what is displayed by a
browser. How does Fay get around that seeming incompatibility in objectives?
So sad, and so unnecessary..
https://github.com/faylang/fay/wiki
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Literate_programming
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
=
(This may be a bit odd for some of us, but I wanted to pass on a novel
innovation)
The latest release of coffeescript has a new Literate "mode": if you use
the extension .litcoffee it is also treated as markdown! This is a modern
extension to Knuth's Literate Programming:
http://www-cs-faculty.
13 matches
Mail list logo
