--- Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Procedural languases are probably closer to the way we think about > life. We go through life one step after the other. > > Kevin
I'm sure you're right. In fact, there are procedural models for reasoning about programs, too, and I suppose I sort of "backed in" to an interest in functional programming by working with an extension to classical logic known as dynamic logic, but not being able to shake the feeling that something wasn't quite right (without really knowing what). But I eventually came to the conclusion that the process was not always the best abstraction to use when thinking about computer programs. This is a question of special interest to me because I've been interested in concurrency and multiprocessing since college. In fact, I might go so far as to say that is, or was,the driving force behind my interest in computer science. It turns out that procedural programs can be translated to lambda calculus in a mechanical (basically by encasing each statement in a sequence within a nested lambda abstraction), but the resulting "programs" can be unwieldy. So, I'm really of two minds here: Is procedural (or object oriented) the "right" way to do things just because it is familiar and comfortable? I would think not. But, on the other hand, is there no way of transferring the benefits of functional programming over to the imperative world? How? To me, this seems a rather urgent question because software development is in a state of crisis right now. Quality is consistently poor, and the level of effort required is hardly commenusurate with the results we achieve. There are two basic mechanisms being used today to address these problems: testing, and increasingly formalized process. I don't see either as being much of a solution. Another option is to just "keep doing what we've always done", but this is no solution either. What is happening is that as systems and projects evolve, the return on investment for the work we do continues to decline. It's a losing battle. But I certainly don't think we should throw up our hands and admit defeat. Rather, I believe the time has come to consider that we may have been asking the wrong questions and that a paradigm shift is called for. Functional programming may not be the answer, but I think it's an idea worth exploring. === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Interaction is the mind-body problem of computing." --Philip Wadler ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
