[Haskell-cafe] 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.

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:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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.

Re: Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

;) 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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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,

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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)

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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-)

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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.

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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,

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

[Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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

Re: [Haskell-cafe] 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.

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