On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> ... If you mention a term like "design patterns",
well I love design patterns, it's just that in Haskell-land
they are called higher-order functions, or polymorphic functions, etc.
I think you need `design pattern' as a special concept
only if you
G'day all.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Paul Hudak wrote:
> reminds of what I think is one of the biggest problems with conventional
> software development: the lack of appreciable mathematics in the
> specification, design, coding, or implementation of programs.
In the interest of
Richard wrote:
> some are using Haskell for "systems programming", as a better C
> than C. some, including me, would like to see more of that,
> with Haskell or another pure functional language with an IO monad
> taking systems programmers away from the C and C++ communities.
That is good, I wou
David Bergman writes:
>Should I imply that the IO monad is "pretty damned useless" in Hugs
>then, since the loop does not run in constant space there?
my statement was too broad. allow me to amend it.
some are using Haskell for "systems programming", as a better C
than C. some, including me, w
Simon PJ writes:
> the existing notice that says "you can do what
>you like with this Report" will stay unchanged. No "non-commercial
>only" caveats.
I remained relatively quiet throughout the discussion,
as I have not contributed to the Report, but I'm very
much relieved.
S
So,
Should I imply that the IO monad is "pretty damned useless" in Hugs
then, since the loop does not run in constant space there?
There are a lot of algorithms that cannot be run in constant space (due
to either recursion depth or structure generation), even in the most
optimized setting. This d
