James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
Gus Wirth wrote:
Tracy R Reed wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Functional progrmming doesn't need a cheerleader. It needs a problem
to which it is an actual solution.
It seems Erlang was the right choice for Ericsson's phone switches.
And for jabberd. I think Lisp was the right choice for emacs. And as
the number of cores grow in our cpu's I think we will find many more
problems to which functional programming is an actual solution. Can
you do hot swapping of code in any non-functional language? The
paralellism just seems to fall out nicely when using a side-effect
free language as well.
Hot swapped code? Sure, it's trivial. Here's a snippet from FreePascal:
MyObject.SomeProcedure := @SomeOtherProcedure;
And you can do this in running code? Does the running code re-translate
the source when it sees a change?
It's done in running code. But it has to have been compiled somewhere
already and in most cases it resides somewhere in the executable unless
it's dynamically linked in from a shared object (a file,
some_collection.so). So for example, lets say I have a routine that
sorts by English language standards (case doesn't matter) and another
where it does matter (C). Then somewhere the user can choose:
if WantCase then
MyObject.SortProc := CSort
else
MyObject.SortProc := NormSort;
The rest of the program is oblivious to which procedure is actually
used, you only have to call MyObject.SortProc
Maybe I'm misinterpreting hot swap (or you are?).
I think Tracy should give us the definition. We might both be looking at
it the wrong way.
Gus
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
