He can't take it very far. The whole point is to keep the entire lesson in the space the audience regards as relevant. What you know to be relevant for his audience isn't the same as what his audience knows to be relevant. We are emphatically not the audience for this piece. Notice how he empha
I don't think this commentary is really fair. It's also insular and bad for
the reputation of the Haskell community. There are enough barriers to
exploring FP and Haskell already. The purpose of the article was to
encourage people to start taking baby steps toward FP, not to demonstrate a
deep
I don't think this commentary is really fair. It's also insular and bad for the reputation of the Haskell community. There are enough barriers to exploring FP and Haskell already. The purpose of the article was to encourage people to start taking baby steps toward FP, not to demonstrate a deep m
So basically he rediscovered Why FP Matters
(http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html) ~15-20 years
after the fact, but neglected to point out the interesting fact that
one can write map in terms of reduce (i.e. foldr) (obviously he didn't
read the paper) and ignored the benefits of laz
Read a sentence like this "If your programming language requires you to
use functors, you're not getting all the benefits of a modern
programming environment. See if you can get some of your money back."
If this is not a very subtle pun (regarding Java functors vs. Haskell
functors), which probab
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 10:10 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> >From the excellent programming blog "Joel on software", a very good
> text if you need to convince Java or C programmers that functional
> programming is a A Good Thing.
>
> Probably all the readers of this list will find it brings n
