Aha, we head towards convergence :-)
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> > I've never written a Haskell program using functional dependencies, or
> > existential classes, ...
>
> I find them indispensible, and I know for a fact that I am not the only one
> around our office who feels
D. Tweed wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
>
> > My reaction to that is: you are not programming in C. If you restrict
> > yourself to nice subsets of a programming language, then obviously your
> > programs will satisfy better properties.
>
> That's certainly a resaonable posit
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> My reaction to that is: you are not programming in C. If you restrict
> yourself to nice subsets of a programming language, then obviously your
> programs will satisfy better properties.
That's certainly a resaonable position to take. All I'm saying
D. Tweed wrote:
> Yes, I guess it's time for a confession: I'm making a rather sweeping
> assumption that the patterns in which I do and don't program are in some
> way `average' or `typical', even though they probably aren't. For
> instance, I don't even use patterns like `a[b++]=c;' just because
I threw this example out:
> every member of a data structure is traversed in a fold ("no early exits")
D. Tweed wrote:
> I'm being terribly unfair here; this was probably just a simple slip when
> writing a hurried e-mail but if you mean what I think you mean about the
> fold:
>
> undefd = undefd
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> also safety, and "theorems for free". Then there are other properties
which
> are obvious (to a programmer) in a Haskell program which get buried in
the
> equivalent C(++) program, e.g., that every member of a data structure is
> traversed in a fold ("
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> > Again, as a C++ programmer I have some grasp of what program
> > rearrangements are valid (E.g.,I can't move an assignment involving an
> > expression in another variable, say v, from before an assignment to v to
> > after an assignment to v), and I
matt heilige wrote:
> this brings up another issue that has, up to this point, not
> been mentioned... the well-understood (and theoretically guaranteed)
> properties of functional languages allow compilers/interpreters to do some
> much smarter things with functional constructs... this allows ver
David Tweed wrote:
> I'd like to respectfully disagree with some of this :-)
I figured someone would. Though I thought it would be Fergus. :)
> > The most important thing about functional languages is that we know
> > _what they are_, and that they can be characterized in a regular
> > fashion w
Mark Carroll wrote
> Do any of the decent Haskell compilers allow you to just type function
> definitions at an interpreter prompt and use them in subsequent
> interactions, as you'd expect from a Lisp environment?
I don't know whether you consider hbi (the interactive version of hbc)
a decent
10 matches
Mail list logo
