I believe he means that Haskell better illustrates what the programs logically do, rather than how they are executed by the CPU. I think there is some merit to that, but I also believe that understanding what is really happening down to the lowest level help me become a better programmer even if I don't explicitly touch those areas.
As a side note I also started out in basic (on a spectrum), but soon my favorite instructions were peek and poke so the code wasn't very... basicy. :) /Erik Språng On Oct 26, 8:28 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> wrote: > > uch of the discussion seemed to be more about learning how computers > > work, as machines, rather than learning how to program. If my daughter > > ever shows any interest in programming, I'll start by teaching her > > Haskell. Hear that? That's the sound of 90% of the readers skipping > > the rest of this message because I used the H-word. Oh well. But > > Haskell gives the most explicit representation of what programs > > actually do, as apposed how the machine executes them. Anyone who > > How can that be true when most jvm byte codes are a one to one mapping with > a machine code for most popular cpus, inc, ret, add etc. Even the way how > local variables and the stack in general looks very similar to how stuff is > done in x86 land to some limited extent because of the lack of registers. > The method dispatching stuff because of the polymorphism and so on required > a few more steps. If anything because bytecodes are so simple, we have more > complex languages evolving which add more layers on top to provide higher > level functionality that is not a first class construct in bytecode and > requires more boring underneath. -- 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.
