On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:58:02PM -0400, David Mason via talk wrote: > The key part of what Lennart wrote is “if done right”. How could you imagine > that the functional program would return the results out of order? > Compilers/interpreters are allow to make whatever optimizations they want, as > long as time and memory consumption are the only things that change from the > original!
Certainly if I have a list of numbers 3 6 4 9 2 and I say, add 2 to each thing in this list, I don't really care what order that is done it, how many threads are working on it, as long as the result is 5 8 6 11 4. If the order was different, then the language is broken. I don't think any of the functional languages woudl mes that up. > XSLT is a very specific functional language, designed for a very particular > job, which (from my limited experience) it does somewhere between > “adequately" and “very well”. But while it may be Turing complete, it is not > a general purpose language and I would not want to program such problems with > it!!! Pure lambda-calculus and Turing machines are also Turing complete, but > you sure wouldn’t want to be programming in those either. No kidding. > Haskell, Scheme, OCaML, Erlang/Elixir, Scala are much, much friendlier > languages for general purpose programming. All the ML dialects, as well as > Scheme and Scala support more imperative programming as well, that can help > with the transition. I haven't used any of them very much, but the bits I have done was very nice. ML's polymorphism is such a neat way to handle things. -- Len Sorensen --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
