I found the post at the following link to be the most useful in explaining
declarative versus imperative:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-September/067000.html
Here follows what I want to add to the discussion:
Shelby Moore wrote:
The most accurate question should be, How do you add some numbers with
minimized instructions?, because it forces them to realize they must
order the set.
An answer might be, Zero if empty, else order the set, sum the first
number with the sum of remainder of the set.
On 2009-10-01 18:47 +0200 (Thu), Alberto G. Corona wrote:
May be because consciousness is relatively new and thus, not optimized.
Actually, no; our brains are very, very highly optimized. Only they're
optimized for minimum power usage, not making the best decisions.
For more information, see
On 2009-10-01 08:53 +0100 (Thu), Andrew Coppin wrote:
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*.
Some are. Some aren't, as proven by the Haskell definition of sum, which
is certainly a program.
I like to think of a
2009/10/1 Curt Sampson c...@starling-software.com
On 2009-10-01 08:53 +0100 (Thu), Andrew Coppin wrote:
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*.
Some are. Some aren't, as proven by the Haskell definition of sum, which
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.comwrote:
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition of
sum looks more like a definition of what a sum is rather than an
;)
Off topic:
Maybe the entire space time, the universe and his history, is isomorphic to
a mathematical structure.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
2009/10/1 Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:53
Tom Tobin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is fundamentally
sequential; parallel computers have been around for a little while now...
Perhaps *conscious* human thinking is
May be because consciousness is relatively new and thus, not optimized.
Sequentiallity is somehow related with lack of information and lack or
resources. There is nothing more sequential than a Turing machine. The Von
Newman architecture is designed to make as much as possible with a few more
On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Sure. But what is a computer program?
It depends on the computer. Classical machines do one thing,
data flow machines do another, reduction machines another.
I once saw a tiny machine at a UK university where the hardware
was a combinator
On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is
fundamentally sequential; parallel computers have been around for a
little while now...
You've never been talking on the phone while stirring a pot with one
hand
and wiping down
On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Human *verbalisation* is fundamental, human *thinking* is not.
Sigh. Accidentally lean on the wrong key and half your text disappears.
Human *verbalisation* is fundamentally sequential.
Human *thinking* is not.
I don't know any sign
Andrew Coppin said:
Sure. But what is a computer program?
then Richard O'Keefe said:
A computer program, in short, is *whatever we want it to be*.
(Within reasonable limits.)
I agree with Richard's conclusion.
From where I sit, the critical point is that, unless you're breadboarding,
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even
sure our thinking can be modeled with computing no?
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of
numbers.
Although the question of
John Dorsey wrote:
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers.
Most of them will say something about adding the first two together,
adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step
by step instructions.
You word the (hypothetical)
Ketil Malde wrote:
Although the question of how we naturally think often comes up, I'm
not sure it's a very important one. In my experience, the natural
thing for humans appear rather to be the absence of thinking, and
instead slouching in front of the TV eating unhealthy food.
After all, we
2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
John Dorsey wrote:
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers.
Most of them will say something about adding the first two together,
adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step by
Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition of
sum looks more like a definition of what a sum is rather than an
2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition
of
sum looks
Casey Hawthorne wrote:
I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems,
you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an
imperative language.
If this is true, it needs to be pushed.
And if by changing a few lines of source code one can develop a whole
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
(Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way,
and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular.
Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way
because that's what he is used
Yep, LINQ makes C# more enjoyable :-) Scala and haXe also look nice, a bit
of a mix between OCaml/F#, C#/Java and Haskell.
Besides the fact that hacking in Haskell is a great deal of fun, the main
reason I see for learning Haskell: it makes you a better programmer. After
a couple of years of
Deniz Dogan wrote:
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
(Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way,
and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular.
Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I might also point out that 90% of all desktop computers run Windows, and
yet every single C library binding on Hackage fails to compile on Windows.
That really needs to be fixed. (Not to mention some of the
Deniz Dogan wrote:
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
(Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way,
and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular.
Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way
because
I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even sure our
thinking can be modeled with computing no?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Jochem Berndsen joc...@functor.nl wrote:
Deniz Dogan wrote:
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
(Mr C++ argues that homo
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even sure
our thinking can be modeled with computing no?
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers.
Most of them will say something about adding the first two together,
adding
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com
wrote:
Casey Hawthorne wrote:
I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems,
you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an
imperative language.
If this is true, it
Sure, but it doesn't mean that because someone uses an imperative way of
counting, that it means people's brains work imperatively all the way.
People tend to talk and communicate a lot in a declarative way no? For
example ask someone that doesn't know programming how he we would make a
paddleball
Am Mittwoch 30 September 2009 09:32:08 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
I might also point out that 90% of all desktop computers run Windows,
and yet every single C library binding on Hackage fails to compile on
Windows. That really needs to be fixed.
Contribute your share, switch to Linux or BSD 8-)
В сообщении от 30 сентября 2009 15:58:40 Jochem Berndsen написал:
Deniz Dogan wrote:
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
(Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative
way, and therefore functional programming in general will never be
popular.
Again, i missed to forward the message to the list:
I experince also the drug effect. Evolutionary psychologists would say that,
because it was vital for our survival, since the stone age, we appreciate
any tool powerful enough to solve many problems while at the same time
remain simple. So
I would say that pure knowledge is pure and functional. but human planning
and problem solving is imperative because implies sequencing of operations
based on this pure knowledge. haskell express both nicely.
2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.comwrote:
(Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way,
and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular. We
shall see...)
You could use the same argument against, say,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:43:12PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of
numbers. Most of them will say something about adding the first two
together, adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other
words, the step by step
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers.
Most of them will say something about adding the first two together,
adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step
by step instructions.
You word the (hypothetical) question with a bias
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:10:19PM -0400, John Dorsey wrote:
Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers.
Most of them will say something about adding the first two together,
adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step
by step
I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems,
you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an
imperative language.
If this is true, it needs to be pushed.
And if by changing a few lines of source code one can develop a whole
family of similar
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems,
you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an
imperative language.
If this is true, it needs to be pushed.
And if by changing
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:19:08 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems,
you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an
imperative language.
If this is
We should have GHC 6.12 launch parties like the Windows 7 ones ;)
(if you haven't seen it, and are feeling masochistic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ)
Dan
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Casey Hawthorne cas...@istar.ca wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:19:08 -0700, you wrote:
On
41 matches
Mail list logo