On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:28:41AM +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Or just a mail server witout buffer overruns would be great. *Sigh*
Just this sort of thing is so often sugested as a proving ground for
all sorts of "fringe" languages. I know it is frequently suggested on
both the Eiffel and Ada l
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Sorry, I got carried away with my silly "hacker" post.
>
> Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> > Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Proposition > Hackers can like
> > FP. [..] > Proof 1: > By contradiction.
> > >
> > > Nothing could
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I've observed many FP/LP people argue that slow or memory-hungry
> applications aren't such a big deal because "in 5 years, Moore's law will make
> them efficient."
No FP people would admit to producing slow and memory-hungry
applications! :-)
Sorry, I got carried away with my silly "hacker" post.
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Proposition > Hackers can like
> FP. [..] > Proof 1: > By contradiction.
> >
> > Nothing could be more obscure or esoteric to a hacker than FP. (They
>
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> D. Tweed writes:
> > However, the issue that lots of the simple & productive ideas
> > from FP are culturally alien & even suspect to programmers in other
> > languages is very true. I write lots of stuff in C++ and the fact that I
> > have functio
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> > Florian Hars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> >
> > > To cite the comments of Olof Torgersson on Haskell
> > > (www.cs.chalmers.se/pub/users/oloft/Papers/wm96/wm96.html):
> > >
> > >As a consequence the prog
D. Tweed writes:
> However, the issue that lots of the simple & productive ideas
> from FP are culturally alien & even suspect to programmers in other
> languages is very true. I write lots of stuff in C++ and the fact that I
> have functions returning two results return a pair rather than eit
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> Florian Hars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
> > To cite the comments of Olof Torgersson on Haskell
> > (www.cs.chalmers.se/pub/users/oloft/Papers/wm96/wm96.html):
> >
> >As a consequence the programmer loses control of what is really
> >going on an
D. Tweed wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Doug Ransom wrote:
>
> > I do believe FP is current 90 degrees out of phase with OO. I
think the
> > isue with tuples, lists, conses, etc. it the big problem. I
currently see
> > no way for someone to write a clever matrix library in Haskell
and have
Tom Pledger:
> Florian Hars writes:
> > efficiency improving no-ops like (fst (head x), snd (head x)): tail
> > x !" (By the way, can anyone explain this section to me?)
..
> The (fst (head x), snd (head x)) : tail x construction assures the run
> time system that a parser for zero or more `a's
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Doug Ransom wrote:
> I do believe FP is current 90 degrees out of phase with OO. I think the
> isue with tuples, lists, conses, etc. it the big problem. I currently see
> no way for someone to write a clever matrix library in Haskell and have it
> seamlessly integrate into
Florian Hars writes:
> [...] Show me any working programmer who reads the "Improving
> laziness"-part in the Hutton/Meijer paper on monadic parser
> combinators and says "Oh! What an elegant language! And these nifty
> efficiency improving no-ops like (fst (head x), snd (head x)): tail
> x !"
Florian Hars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> To cite the comments of Olof Torgersson on Haskell
> (www.cs.chalmers.se/pub/users/oloft/Papers/wm96/wm96.html):
>
>As a consequence the programmer loses control of what is really
>going on and may need special tools like heap-profilers to find o
I do
believe FP is current 90 degrees out of phase with OO. I think the isue
with tuples, lists, conses, etc. it the big problem. I currently see no
way for someone to write a clever matrix library in Haskell and have it
seamlessly integrate into the NGWS framework (the new object type and
> As another example, compare the propaganda version of quicksort in
> Haskell with a more realistic tail recursive one.
I remember thinking "wow!" when I first saw the Gentle Introduction
version of quicksort, then "hang on...that's not quicksort!". Whatever
happened to in-place update (one of t
Doug Ransom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> none will miss spending a couple of weeks at the end of the
> development cycle trying to find a memory leak.
Apart from the fact that they are called space leaks, a lazy
functional language will not help them with this problem. It may
rather aggravate it
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Craig Dickson wrote:
[]
> With such optimism about programmers, I'm astounded that you're writing from
> a .com rather than a .edu address. :-) My experience in industry has led me
> to quite different conclusions. Many C/C++ programmers seem not to recognize
> pointer issues
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They still live in Emacs. (Emacs Lisp's variables are dynamically scoped.)
OK. I tend to forget about this one, since I'm using it every day
(and use the macro "lexical-let" unless I am sure that no evil things
will happen).
Ralf
Doug Ransom wrote:
> I think you are mistakening ignorance for stupidity. It
> is true that C/C++ programmers like to write OO and few
> have any idea about functional programming, but very few
> will miss the ability to constantly shoot themselves in
> the foot with uninitalized random pointers
>
> If C# again makes it easy to write unsafe code, then in order
> to avoid the learning curve, many current C/C++ programmers
> are likely to continue programming in The Old Way. The trick
> lies in the learning curve.
>
I think you are mistakening ignorance for stupidity. It is true tha
Ralf Muschall writes:
> > simplistic, binary distinction), then you have to decide where to draw the
> > line between "functional languages" and other languages that may, to some
>
> I think it became impossible to draw that line since the inventors
> and maintainers of dysfunctional langaug
> From: Ralf Muschall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 16 Aug 2000 21:46:44 +0200
> "Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > simplistic, binary distinction), then you have to decide where to
> > draw the line between "functional languages" and other languages
> > that may, to some
>
> I think
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:13:16 -0700
"Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
>
> > : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside
> in
> > their own namespace, and need special operators.
> > : iteration and side effects are not particularly
> discouraged,
On 16 Aug 2000 13:40:29 +0200
Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think if I had
> > to use one language for everything, CL would definitely
> be a
> > candidate. Of course, Haskell is so much prettier.
> I'm on my way learning both languages. IMO Lisp a more
> programm
Ralf Muschall writes:
>Some old dead lisps might lack lexical scoping, at least CL has it
>since a long time. The only places I know about where old lisps still
>live are Reduce and Autocad (is this still dynamical?).
They still live in Emacs. (Emacs Lisp's variables are dynamically scoped.)
"Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree, and would add (if I'm recalling correctly) that LISP lacks lexical
> scoping, which may not be an absolute requirement for functional programming
Some old dead lisps might lack lexical scoping, at least CL has it
since a long time. The only
I see that the discussion has progressed considerably during the (for me, in
California) night, so I'll just make a couple of comments...
Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
> : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in
> their own namespace, and need special operators.
> : iteration and side e
On Tue 15 Aug, Doug Ransom wrote:
> I think NGWS will
> be the kiss of death for FP in the large -- OO just seems 90 degrees out of
> phase with FP.
Have you looked at O'Haskell?
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~nordland/ohaskell/
I'm blissfully ignorant of the details of C# and NGWS (and intend
> > Why abused? Why should the "pure" functional way the best for
> > programming? Couldn't it be that a language which supports other
> > features besides functionl elements.
>
> Indeed. Could it be that Lisp supports, yea, even encourages,
> non-functional programming? Why, then, is it impo
Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
>>> functions (...) reside in their own namespace
>>> iteration and side effects are not particularly discouraged
>>> (...and commonly used)
>> Does that then not just make it a functional langu
Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
>
> Well, the obvious arguments would be that
>
> : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in their own
> namespace, and need special oper
Julz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
> >
> > Well, the obvious arguments would be that
> >
> > : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in their own
> > namespace, and need special operators.
>
> > : iteration and side effects are
> > Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
>
> Well, the obvious arguments would be that
>
> : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in their own
> namespace, and need special operators.
> : iteration and side effects are not particularly discouraged, and is
> probably as
<004301c00704$16d9a5c0$4d01140a@inkpad>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: Friedrich Dominicus's message of "16 Aug 2000 08:09:54 +0200"
Date: 16 Aug 2000 11:17:25 +0200
Message-ID: <[
Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
Well, the obvious arguments would be that
: functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in their own
namespace, and need special operators.
: iteration and side effects are not particularly
>
> This is, needless to say, something of a matter of opinion and historical
> interpretation. I wouldn't call LISP an FP language, though it is surely
> ancestral to many FP languages, and many FP concepts have their basis in
> LISP features.
Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language? I t
Jacques Lemire wrote:
> On the contrary, languages like C++ (and Java) and
> C# are full of concepts and ideas coming from FP
> languages. For example, the catch/try/throw construct
> is coming directly from Common Lisp (Lisp is a
> (although impure) FP language).
This is, needless to say, som
37 matches
Mail list logo
