Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Tim Chevalier wrote: > On 1/27/08, Dipankar Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 3) most of the canonical US universities for CS (MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, > > CMU, etc) basically don't teach haskell or ML, or even talk much about it, > > relative to how much they talk about, say, Java. > > > > It's one thing that companies don't move forward; yet another thing that > > Universities don't either. Why is that? Why, in 2008, is Java taught more > > than Haskell? > > > > There's really only one reason for this: at least in the United > States, universities are becoming more and more like businesses, and > faculty feel they have to give students what they want in order to > "compete". Computer science undergrads, as a whole, want to learn Java > or C++ "so they can learn something that'll be useful and help them > get a job." Same here in Germany. Universities become controlled by industry leaders (see "Hochschulfreiheitsgesetz") thanks to Bertelsmann et.al., and universities are considered as producers of programmers for industry. With this reasoning we offered an introduction to C for math students. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On 1/27/08, Dipankar Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Jerzy and Bulat, > > Thanks for your perspectives. Bulat, I can understand that you find it > shocking that the folks at Moscow University still study Lisp, but I > wouldn't be so quick to condemn them for being dinosaurs. After all, they > just stopped teaching the SICP course (using Scheme) at MIT, and I don't > believe that they replaced it with an intro to CS course that uses (say) > Haskell or ML! Nor has Berkeley, far as I know. > Correct -- CS 61A at Berkeley (the 6.001 analogue there) is still taught in Scheme, and I suspect that anyone who wants to change that will have to pry the course out of Brian Harvey's cold, dead hands. > What I mean by this is that if I look at the CS programs at Berkeley, MIT, > CMU, I don't see a huge emphasis on PL. Looking now at the MIT > opencourseware offerings in EECS, I see no undergrad course that suggests > that you'd learn anything about modern type theory. As a former graduate student instructor for the undergrad compiler class at Berkeley, I can confirm that this statement is mostly but not quite true for Berkeley. (As Dan Licata pointed out, CMU is an exception here; I get the feeling MIT is more like Berkeley than MIT in this respect.) The compiler class there (CS 164) is required for all CS majors, and depending who's teaching it in a given semester, students might well get to see formal presentations of both static and dynamic semantics for a simple object-oriented language (at least the the time when I taught a section of the class, though I see that right now their target language is Python.) Granted, students have the option of either Java or C++ for the implementation languages, which is less than ideal. > > Of course we know here of success stories involving modern fp languages. > But there is no haskell or ml book that has had close to the influence of > K&R's C book. One might argue that adoption on that scale is not the goal > of the haskell community (was it Kernighan, Ritchie, or Thompson's goal? I > think not), but still, it's weird to me that: > At least based on my own experience and that of my peers, I think people from my generation who got interested in FP languages mostly got turned on by a particular teacher who was really into it, rather than by a particular book. > 1) we're clearly on to something, but still > > 2) many smart people who are interested walk away frustrated (not so easy > to learn (is the hardness necessary? perhaps?), relative to K&R, for > example). > For #2, note my comment above about teachers. It's always easier and more motivating to learn when you have someone a little more experienced to guide and encourage you. But for FP, there are fewer people around to do the teaching, thus more people get discouraged. I feel like I'm saying something tautological here, though: if nobody teaches, nobody can learn. For some reason or another, I think being self-taught when it comes to FP is hard in a way that being self-taught when it comes to programming in general isn't -- perhaps it's for the same reason that being a self-taught mathematician is hard, though some people pull it off. Personally I think I'm pretty self-motivated, and am self-taught in a lot of other areas, but I don't think I ever would have learned Haskell on my own. So what does that say about programmers as a whole? > 3) most of the canonical US universities for CS (MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, > CMU, etc) basically don't teach haskell or ML, or even talk much about it, > relative to how much they talk about, say, Java. > > It's one thing that companies don't move forward; yet another thing that > Universities don't either. Why is that? Why, in 2008, is Java taught more > than Haskell? > There's really only one reason for this: at least in the United States, universities are becoming more and more like businesses, and faculty feel they have to give students what they want in order to "compete". Computer science undergrads, as a whole, want to learn Java or C++ "so they can learn something that'll be useful and help them get a job." The faculty know this is ridiculous, but a lot of them buckle under anyway because they need to boost their enrollments. The notion of the university as a place where students pay faculty members so that they might benefit from the vaster experience and judgment of the faculty -- which means deferring certain decisions to those who are wiser than you -- seems to be going out the window along with paper registration cards. Moreover: At Berkeley, the faculty didn't teach Haskell or ML because they didn't believe in Haskell or ML. If you personally don't think that a language is ever going to be adopted -- if you think that it's elegant but will never be practical -- it's going to be hard for you to sell it to a 300-person hall full of undergrads, most of whom are likely to start checking email the moment you say something that bores them. Disclaimer: This entir
Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
Hello Jerzy and Bulat, Thanks for your perspectives. Bulat, I can understand that you find it shocking that the folks at Moscow University still study Lisp, but I wouldn't be so quick to condemn them for being dinosaurs. After all, they just stopped teaching the SICP course (using Scheme) at MIT, and I don't believe that they replaced it with an intro to CS course that uses (say) Haskell or ML! Nor has Berkeley, far as I know. ...ok, I looked, the MIT intro course is now taught in python. I'll let you decide if that's a step up from scheme. Which brings us back to the topic of the original thread - Simon's request for perspectives. The wonderfulness of advances in type theory these past 20 years, which are appreciated so readily here - they don't seem to have achieved universal acceptance in industry or in academia. What I mean by this is that if I look at the CS programs at Berkeley, MIT, CMU, I don't see a huge emphasis on PL. Looking now at the MIT opencourseware offerings in EECS, I see no undergrad course that suggests that you'd learn anything about modern type theory. Of course we know here of success stories involving modern fp languages. But there is no haskell or ml book that has had close to the influence of K&R's C book. One might argue that adoption on that scale is not the goal of the haskell community (was it Kernighan, Ritchie, or Thompson's goal? I think not), but still, it's weird to me that: 1) we're clearly on to something, but still 2) many smart people who are interested walk away frustrated (not so easy to learn (is the hardness necessary? perhaps?), relative to K&R, for example). 3) most of the canonical US universities for CS (MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, etc) basically don't teach haskell or ML, or even talk much about it, relative to how much they talk about, say, Java. It's one thing that companies don't move forward; yet another thing that Universities don't either. Why is that? Why, in 2008, is Java taught more than Haskell? On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: Hello Dipankar, Sunday, January 27, 2008, 12:16:38 AM, you wrote: Anyway, no we're older, and we realize that it would have helped our math understanding out quite a bit had we learned more physics, engineering, etc. Or had we learned 19th century mathematics well. The Russian program seems to do this, actually (at least for the sample set of kids that make it to the US). oh, yes, they are really still study 19th century physics, but not because of great mind, but due to age of university professors. i've studied at Moscow University in 89-91 and department of computer languages still studied Lisp at those times (!). a few months ago i have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:25 -0500, Brian Sniffen wrote: > On Jan 27, 2008 3:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > a few months ago i > > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > > I dunno. Sussman and Abelson are not getting any younger, and neither > is Felleisen, but others have taken up that torch. So far, those who > waited for Lisp to die out have spent a long time waiting. It has not > been a winning bet. No language that was ever "popular" has ever died as far as I can tell. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
Well, the POPL talk was very pro-types, saying that when you move from a scripting language to a language to write real systems you need static types. On Jan 27, 2008 9:52 PM, Derek Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:30 -0800, Don Stewart wrote: > > brian.sniffen: > > > On Jan 27, 2008 3:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > a few months ago i > > > > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp > (!!!). > > > > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no > earlier > > > > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s > done > > > > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > > > > > > I dunno. Sussman and Abelson are not getting any younger, and neither > > > is Felleisen, but others have taken up that torch. So far, those who > > > waited for Lisp to die out have spent a long time waiting. It has not > > > been a winning bet. > > > > > > > And just as PLT Scheme announces they're moving to immutable, pure lists > > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2631 > > > > They'll be getting a type system soon, at this rate ;) > > Well we have: "The Design and Implementation of Typed Scheme" very > recently http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/popl08-thf.pdf This is > something in the "soft typing" tradition (and uses PLT Scheme as the > vehicle.) > > I believe PLT Scheme already supports a HM typed version of Scheme > though primarily for pedagogical purposes if I remember correctly. > > It is however, unlikely that Scheme will ever be statically typed "by > default." > > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:30 -0800, Don Stewart wrote: > brian.sniffen: > > On Jan 27, 2008 3:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > a few months ago i > > > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > > > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > > > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > > > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > > > > I dunno. Sussman and Abelson are not getting any younger, and neither > > is Felleisen, but others have taken up that torch. So far, those who > > waited for Lisp to die out have spent a long time waiting. It has not > > been a winning bet. > > > > And just as PLT Scheme announces they're moving to immutable, pure lists > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2631 > > They'll be getting a type system soon, at this rate ;) Well we have: "The Design and Implementation of Typed Scheme" very recently http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/popl08-thf.pdf This is something in the "soft typing" tradition (and uses PLT Scheme as the vehicle.) I believe PLT Scheme already supports a HM typed version of Scheme though primarily for pedagogical purposes if I remember correctly. It is however, unlikely that Scheme will ever be statically typed "by default." ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
You mean as the the POPL paper, http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2622 ? On Jan 27, 2008 10:30 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And just as PLT Scheme announces they're moving to immutable, pure lists > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2631 > > They'll be getting a type system soon, at this rate ;) > > -- Don > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
brian.sniffen: > On Jan 27, 2008 3:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > a few months ago i > > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > > I dunno. Sussman and Abelson are not getting any younger, and neither > is Felleisen, but others have taken up that torch. So far, those who > waited for Lisp to die out have spent a long time waiting. It has not > been a winning bet. > And just as PLT Scheme announces they're moving to immutable, pure lists http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2631 They'll be getting a type system soon, at this rate ;) -- Don ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Jan 27, 2008 3:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a few months ago i > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension I dunno. Sussman and Abelson are not getting any younger, and neither is Felleisen, but others have taken up that torch. So far, those who waited for Lisp to die out have spent a long time waiting. It has not been a winning bet. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]or[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Jan 27, 2008 11:49 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > oh, yes, they are really still study 19th century physics, but not > because of great mind, but due to age of university professors. i've > studied at Moscow University in 89-91 and department of computer > languages still studied Lisp at those times (!). a few months ago i > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > I've learned Haskell in MEPhI. And Lisp seems to be really popular now due to Paul Graham. What I really want to mention is that the philosophy of education in Russia consider "modern" irrelevant. "Modern" changes really fast and it is not any better to teach something modern then outdated, except if you are going to create some ballast of Java programmers who will prevent progress and preserve market stability, i. e. really be outdated. What university try to do is teach you how to swim really good, so you'll have a better chances to find out where to swim. I mean they teach you to learn, not anything else. Everything else is just a pretty bonus. -- vir http://vir.comtv.ru/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 11:49 +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello Dipankar, > > Sunday, January 27, 2008, 12:16:38 AM, you wrote: > > > Anyway, no we're older, and we realize that it would have helped our math > > understanding out quite a bit had we learned more physics, engineering, > > etc. Or had we learned 19th century mathematics well. The Russian program > > seems to do this, actually (at least for the sample set of kids that make > > it to the US). > > oh, yes, they are really still study 19th century physics, but not > because of great mind, but due to age of university professors. i've > studied at Moscow University in 89-91 and department of computer > languages still studied Lisp at those times (!). a few months ago i > have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). > it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier > that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done > interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension > This reminds me, I worked at a Dutch telecomm software production company for a short while in 1999 and they had two Russian software engineers there, one from St. Petersburg and one from Wladiwostok, both female and under 25 years of age. They programmed in C and were highly respected by their managers and colleagues! So, there are at least counterexamples :-) Regards, Hans van Thiel > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
Hello jerzy, Sunday, January 27, 2008, 1:48:07 AM, you wrote: >> I've often heard from my Eastern European colleagues that they learned >> almost nothing about computer science back home... > === > Well, I have the impression, at least I intended to say just the reverse > (not the opposite), that the arrogance/bias against computers has been > partly "justified" by a very good level in math. The decision makers > confounded the math science with the domain of computation... i don't think that there were any decisions. Soviet system is just system of government monopolies where each monopoly "works" in the way that is more comfortable for its bureaucrats rather than "users". it's true for factories, communal services, shops, anything. at the beginning of computer era, computational mathematics was the only computer application and our CS started in these fields, like american's one. but then new applications arrived, and western CS was switched to service them, while here professors continued to teach that they know better, push the math into the programs of other institutes and so on. it's no problem for Soviet system that institute prepares specialists for non-existing applications - they should learn yourself. so we just have system of "science for science" without any practical outcome, and contents of this science dictated by professors who was actual 50 years ago -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
Hello Dipankar, Sunday, January 27, 2008, 12:16:38 AM, you wrote: > Anyway, no we're older, and we realize that it would have helped our math > understanding out quite a bit had we learned more physics, engineering, > etc. Or had we learned 19th century mathematics well. The Russian program > seems to do this, actually (at least for the sample set of kids that make > it to the US). oh, yes, they are really still study 19th century physics, but not because of great mind, but due to age of university professors. i've studied at Moscow University in 89-91 and department of computer languages still studied Lisp at those times (!). a few months ago i have a conversation with today student and they still learn Lisp (!!!). it seems that they will switch to more modern FP languages no earlier that this concrete professor, head of PL department, which in 60s done interesting AI research, will dead, or at least go to the pension -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[2]: The programming language market (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why functional programming matters
Hello Paul, Saturday, January 26, 2008, 11:03:30 PM, you wrote: >>> * Say "computers are cheap but programmers are expensive" whenever >>> explaining a correctness or productivity feature. >> This is true only if talking to people in high-income nations. > Even in low-income nations, its only false in the short term. If you > have skilled programmers with computers and Internet connections then > their wages inflate to the world norm. IIRC India is seeing 20%/year > wage inflation for comp-sci graduates. they know English. and Internet/modern computers are not so easily available in poor countries. try for example to find programmers from Uzbekistan on the net :D -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
