i wonder if u coul write the following program for
me. i couldn't get mine to work so i wanna check. my email address
is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
As we know, SOCOG's effort at alloc
Florian Hars writes:
> [...] Show me any working programmer who reads the "Improving
> laziness"-part in the Hutton/Meijer paper on monadic parser
> combinators and says "Oh! What an elegant language! And these nifty
> efficiency improving no-ops like (fst (head x), snd (head x)): tail
> x !"
Florian Hars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> To cite the comments of Olof Torgersson on Haskell
> (www.cs.chalmers.se/pub/users/oloft/Papers/wm96/wm96.html):
>
>As a consequence the programmer loses control of what is really
>going on and may need special tools like heap-profilers to find o
I do
believe FP is current 90 degrees out of phase with OO. I think the isue
with tuples, lists, conses, etc. it the big problem. I currently see no
way for someone to write a clever matrix library in Haskell and have it
seamlessly integrate into the NGWS framework (the new object type and
> As another example, compare the propaganda version of quicksort in
> Haskell with a more realistic tail recursive one.
I remember thinking "wow!" when I first saw the Gentle Introduction
version of quicksort, then "hang on...that's not quicksort!". Whatever
happened to in-place update (one of t
Doug Ransom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> none will miss spending a couple of weeks at the end of the
> development cycle trying to find a memory leak.
Apart from the fact that they are called space leaks, a lazy
functional language will not help them with this problem. It may
rather aggravate it
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Craig Dickson wrote:
[]
> With such optimism about programmers, I'm astounded that you're writing from
> a .com rather than a .edu address. :-) My experience in industry has led me
> to quite different conclusions. Many C/C++ programmers seem not to recognize
> pointer issues
