f his theory made it into
Haskell and other commonly used functional languages.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
> On 13-03-20 06:54 PM, OWP wrote:
>
>> For me personally, one thing I enjoy about a typical procedural program
>> is that it allows me to "
I made an error. I meant FP to stand for Functional Programming, the
concept not the language.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM, OWP wrote:
> This thought isn't really related to Haskell specifically but it's more
> towards FP ideal in general.
>
> I'm new to the FP
This thought isn't really related to Haskell specifically but it's more
towards FP ideal in general.
I'm new to the FP world and to get me started, I began reading a few
papers. One paper is by John Backus called "Can Programming Be Liberated
from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and It'
ld look like?
Mainly, what could be left to compile to the stock architecture and
what could be sent out to more specialized areas?
On 3/18/13, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>
> On 19/03/2013, at 9:31 AM, OWP wrote:
>
>> If I may ask, I'm not quite sure what O(2^n) an
l? Could
there be a competitive advantage to specialized architecture if
Moore's Law were to go away?
On 3/17/13, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, OWP wrote:
>> These "stock architectures", were they really so good that they out
>> performed the special
Hi,
I was reading the paper "A History of Haskell: being lazy with class" (
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/History_of_Haskel) and came on a section
(I 2.1) which briefly explained the work people did on making non-von
Neumann architectures.
It concluded by saying
"Much (but not all) of this
