On May 10, 7:18 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 10, 12:40 pm, namekuseijin namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com
wrote:
theoretical argument like, everything reduces to a function so it
doesn't matter what syntax you use, yet people in the real world are
out there trying to find
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 9, 10:57 am, namekuseijin namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com
wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages,
On May 10, 12:40 pm, namekuseijin namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com
wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
Now, maybe readability concerns don't matter to you personally, but it
does matter to the OP, who is trying to advocate functional
programming but is having difficulty because most purely functional
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
Syntax--the thing you claim doesn't matter--got in the middle because
it was the main factor that drove the OP to look for alternatives to
Haskell.
I don't think so. The OP said that ... the syntax would be a lot
easier to understand, than most
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message 692b7ae8-0c5b-498a-
a012-51bda980f...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, namekuseijin wrote:
On May 8, 6:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message gu269i$16i...@adenine.netfront.net, namekuseijin wrote:
Carl Banks
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages, any extra
syntax gets converted into the core lambda constructs.
So? The user still uses
On Sat, 09 May 2009 14:57:24 -0300, namekuseijin wrote:
I'm saying syntax is nothing special. They are user-defined, as
functions. And it all gets converted into functions. Functions matter,
syntax is irrelevant because you can do away with it.
How do you call functions without syntax? By
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
I think your point is wrong. Without syntax, there can be no written
communication. In Haskell, f.g is not the same as f+g -- the difference
is one of syntax.
In Haskell, (+) and (.) are both functions. (+) takes two numbers as
On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:08:49 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
I think your point is wrong. Without syntax, there can be no written
communication. In Haskell, f.g is not the same as f+g -- the difference
is one of syntax.
In Haskell, (+)
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 14:57:24 -0300, namekuseijin wrote:
I'm saying syntax is nothing special. They are user-defined, as
functions. And it all gets converted into functions. Functions matter,
syntax is irrelevant because you can do away with it.
How do you call
On May 9, 10:57 am, namekuseijin namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com
wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages, any extra
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
So it's really true you can get rid of almost all Haskell expression
syntax.
And what you've got left is syntax. Without syntax, how can you tell the
difference between a meaningful character string and a jumble of random
Python also has higher-order functions like that, but their use is
disfavored in certain circles. With Python 3, there has actually been
movement towards removing them from the language.
... Buh? Reduce was moved to functools, map and filter weren't touched;
there was some discussion before
I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the
language.
Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
I/O, etc.), so that the pure code could be compiled and have
aggressive functional
On May 8, 3:04 pm, Casey Hawthorne caseyhhammer_t...@istar.ca wrote:
I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the
language.
Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
I/O, etc
On May 8, 12:04 pm, Casey Hawthorne caseyhhammer_t...@istar.ca
wrote:
I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the
language.
Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
I/O, etc
prueba...@latinmail.com escreveu:
Don't forget that the Python interpreter is simple. It makes
maintenance easier and allows embedding it into other programs. Good
optimizing compilers for functional languages are not simple.
Good optimizing compilers are not simple, period.
The python
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program is nothing but function definition and function
application, syntax is meaningless.
It's kinda like scripting, say, Microsoft Word in either Visual
In message gu269i$16i...@adenine.netfront.net, namekuseijin wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program is nothing but function definition and function
application, syntax is meaningless.
On May 8, 1:56 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program is nothing but function definition and function
application, syntax is meaningless.
For
On May 8, 6:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message gu269i$16i...@adenine.netfront.net, namekuseijin wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program
On May 8, 7:22 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 1:56 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program is nothing but function
Casey Hawthorne caseyhhammer_t...@istar.ca writes:
Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
I/O, etc.), so that the pure code could be compiled and have
aggressive functional transformations applied
On May 8, 5:47 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that when all you do is call functions, syntax is
irrelevant. You call functions pretty much in the same way regardless
of language: functionname, optionalOpenPar, parameters,
optionalClosePar.
then...
Functional
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes:
I can go on, but you get the idea. Point is: functional programmint
isn't nothing but calling functions.
I would mainly describe functional programming as programming with the
pervasive use of higher order functions. For example, loops in
functional
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 5:47 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that when all you do is call functions, syntax is
irrelevant. You call functions pretty much in the same way regardless
of language: functionname,
Casey Hawthorne wrote:
I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the
language.
Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
I/O, etc.), so that the pure code could be compiled
In message 692b7ae8-0c5b-498a-
a012-51bda980f...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, namekuseijin wrote:
On May 8, 6:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message gu269i$16i...@adenine.netfront.net, namekuseijin wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However,
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 5:47 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that when all you do is call functions, syntax is
irrelevant. You call functions pretty
29 matches
Mail list logo
