I mean, we have tricks such as tail-recursion to optimize FP but at the end of the day, FP ends up executing on a turing-machine. So isn't FP more about expressiveness and correctness than performance? Perhaps multi-cores will change this but don't think it has happened yet. We'll always need number-crunching, but the most interesting stuff at the systems level comes from side-effects (I/O, screen etc.).
On Jul 14, 4:03 pm, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, one could argue that copy-on-write filesystems are all about > persistent immutable structures. > A cornerstone of most FP patterns nowadays. > > (no, not "persistent" as in Hibernate, but this kind of > persistent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure) > > On 14 July 2010 15:00, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Functional level programming is very useful at the system level > > > implementations. > > > Hmm... because many kernels and device drivers make use of FP? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail/google talk: [email protected] > wave: [email protected] > skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
