On 4/16/07, Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And remember one thing that we learned the hard way (on a doomed project
> at a company I used to work for): do NOT try to find a circuits analogy
> to classical imperative programming -- it's a fool's errand.  We wasted
> a lot of time on that, before realizing that classical imperative
> programming is best done in classical imperative languages.  Solving
> higher-level problems which did not embody a natural "control strategy"
> was on the other hand well-suited to circuits kind of thinking.

Agreed.  In a lot of papers on functional-reactive programming I see
examples which do something like integrate a function or simulate some
dynamic physics system, with all the low-level logic written using FRP
constructs.  Maybe it's just me, but these examples strike me as
awkward---they could just as easily be written in a functional way.
It's really the high-level management of the issues encountered when
interfacing these systems together as components that makes FRP
appealing to me, and I conjecture that the same would hold true for a
circuit-based paradigm.  Writing a 10-band EQ module using circuits
would likely be awkward, but representing the EQ module itself as a
chip and connecting it to a "microphone" chip, a "VU meter" chip, and
a "speaker" chip has already been proven to be a good idea (witness
Simulink, LabVIEW, Max/MSP, etc.).  I'm not very familiar with Erlang
but I understand it works the same way... low-level components are
written in the language du jour while Erlang handles the high-level
distributed programming stuff.

- Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language

Reply via email to