Thanks to all of You,
I think I learnt really a lot just on this thread about Haskell and also OO
in general.
I fear I'm too busy in the near future to come up with a good example and
some more questions. Might happen later, because this topic is really
interesting. Till then -- Thanks Philipp
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 16.01.2011, 14:48 -0800 schrieb gutti:
>> Looking at life u probably could save time, if u only would evaluate
>> code on cells, where the neighbors have changed status. So rather than
>> triggering them all centrally and e
Am Sonntag, den 16.01.2011, 14:48 -0800 schrieb gutti:
> Looking at life u probably could save time, if u only would evaluate
> code on cells, where the neighbors have changed status. So rather than
> triggering them all centrally and each checks its neighbours, we could
> use the concept:
>
> -
If you want to use an OO approach: try thinking of a sparse array of
objects (previous and current generations) where each object "knows"
its coordinates by being linked into a sparse array data structure.
Quoting gutti :
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
"Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 [via H
Hi Nick,
thanks a lot -- timber-lang seems very interesting, but seems still too
young for productive useage. That language probably needs 2 more years to
stabilise, but its defintely good that its so haskell related.
The other links are very interesting (especially the coding examples), but
I'
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
"Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 [via Haskell]"
wrote:
> Is this really ideal for OO? I thought that in a cellular automaton,
> all cells have to change synchronously. In addition, cells have to
> access the old states of their neighbours to compute their new
> states
Hi!
2011/1/14 gutti
I'm especially interestes in engineering calculation tasks where cellular
> automata could be used. In that case all u have to do is to give the class
> the right properties and that "let it grow".
>
> Such a localised intelligence approach seems an ideal OO - task. I don't
>
Hi Philipp,
depending on what engineering calculations you are interested in, you
might like http://timber-lang.org/ , a direct descendant of O'Haskell,
targeted at embedded real-time systems.
If you are just stepping out of the OO programming world, it might be
helpful to imagine OO as a ra
On 11-01-13 06:23 PM, gutti wrote:
I'm especially interestes in engineering calculation tasks where cellular
automata could be used. In that case all u have to do is to give the class
the right properties and that "let it grow".
Such a localised intelligence approach
seems to be exactly existe
Am Donnerstag, den 13.01.2011, 15:23 -0800 schrieb gutti:
> I'm especially interestes in engineering calculation tasks where cellular
> automata could be used. In that case all u have to do is to give the class
> the right properties and that "let it grow".
>
> Such a localised intelligence appro
Hi,
thanks for all Your answers (and again I'm amazed how active and good this
forum is).
I expected OOHaskell to be on the somewhat "extended" side, but I didn't
expect it to be so uncommon.
This very strong and clear feedback is indeed very valuable.
I think I see the complexities of OO-pr
gutti gmx.net> writes:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to check whether Haskell offers reasonably easy object oriented
> programming -- I already had a look into "Haskell's overlooked object
> system" und "A Gentle Introduction to Haskell 98" [H98]
>
I think you're better off starting by describing
gutti wrote:
> I wanted to check whether Haskell offers reasonably easy object oriented
> programming
If you really insist on doing OO programming in a functional
language you may want to look at Scala and Ocaml, both of
which have proper OO additions.
I haven't used Scala myself but have done q
Phil:
> I wanted to check whether Haskell offers reasonably easy object oriented
> programming
>
It depends on what you're looking for, but in general, you won't find the
same thing you may be used to in native OO languages.
1. OOHaskell doesn't seem to be available in the HackageDB (cabal) -- s
gutti wrote:
> I wanted to check whether Haskell offers reasonably easy object oriented
> programming -- I already had a look into "Haskell's overlooked object
> system" und "A Gentle Introduction to Haskell 98" [H98]
Its probably a bad idea to try and write Java style OO code in
Haskell. Trying
Hi,
I wanted to check whether Haskell offers reasonably easy object oriented
programming -- I already had a look into "Haskell's overlooked object
system" und "A Gentle Introduction to Haskell 98" [H98]
There are a few things where I could use advice with:
1. OOHaskell doesn't seem to be avai
16 matches
Mail list logo
