Claus Reinke wrote: > The ground is better prepared than ever. It remains up to you to > decide whether you're confident enough to use FP, without needless > hype, and just for the many things you know it can do well.
As a naive but interested newbie, I'm very keen to understand those things that FP does well - and just as importantly, those things it doesn't. (I'm coming at this from use in an industrial context). Based on (_very_) limited experience so far, I get the feeling that: . FP is well suited to transformation-type problems - i.e. those that can usefully be viewed as transforming some input to a required output. . FP - or at least Haskell - is not so well suited to reactive, event driven, parallel systems: i.e. those that can usefully be viewed as a CSP system. Please don't flame if this is off-base, I'm trying to get a handle on things. This is based primarily on Haskell; I realise Erlang's primary domain is telecoms, which implies it does address the second category. Assuming that's so, are there extra concepts in Erlang that make it suitable for such problems? Thanks, Scott. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
