why you (and Donald) don't want to understand me. i
say that imperative
Haskell code is more efficient than pure (and
especially lazy) one and that
even such code in ghc is slower than C equivalent.
I think the concern about execution speed of
algorithms is a fairly recent topic. At least,
Hello Bulat,
you are talking about the real world, but maybe it
useful to think about, that the real world might have
different forms, falls into different categories.
What I mean: The real world for a computer game
programmer, network service application developper,
complex simulation software
Another difference with music that strikes me is the
level of
abstraction : a note is a note. A line of code
(especially in a
imperative setting) is much more than a line of
code.
But this is exactly what semantics is about, or not?
It is the question, when you have a set of symbols or
Not sure whether this is the right place to discuss
computers and programming in general: But Dijkstra's
metaphor is suggesting, that while Beethoven learned
by experiment and debugging compositions, Mozart did
not have a need for reflection while writing down
music ?
The observation above
You're implying that there's a *more* appropriate
forum somewhere for
discussing analogies between music composition and
programming
languages? If so, I'd like to know what it is!
Yes, music and programming languages are ultimately
phenomena of our human brains/minds. Therefore, the
In my opinion it would be important to increase the
understanding about semantics and processes. And
it would be good to introduce the concepts in a
similar way as Profokiev introduces the sound of
classical music in Peter and the Wolf. If my
suspicion is correct, functional programming would be
(to Kirsten, Akhmechet, cc: Haskell-Cafe)
I would divide the book into two parts. The first
part would introduce
Haskell via traditional small examples. Quick sort,
towers of Hanoi,
etc. The second part would have two or three large
examples -
something that people would relate to. I'd take
