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
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:
- let
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org 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
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 [via Haskell]
ml-node+3341886-976283800-146...@n5.nabble.com 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
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
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 philipp.guttenb...@gmx.net:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
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 approach
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
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
Hi!
2011/1/14 gutti philipp.guttenb...@gmx.net
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
gutti philipp.guttenberg at 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
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
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
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 to do
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) -- so
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
