Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Shelby Moore wrote: > The most accurate question should be, "How do you add some numbers with > minimized instructions?", because it forces them to realize they must > order the set. > > An answer might be, "Zero if empty, else order the set, sum the first > number with the sum of remainder of the

[Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

I found the post at the following link to be the most useful in explaining declarative versus imperative: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-September/067000.html Here follows what I want to add to the discussion: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-September/0670

Re: Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On 2009-10-01 18:47 +0200 (Thu), Alberto G. Corona wrote: > May be because consciousness is relatively new and thus, not optimized. Actually, no; our brains are very, very highly optimized. Only they're optimized for minimum power usage, not making the best decisions. For more information, see

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Andrew Coppin said: >> Sure. But what is a computer program? then Richard O'Keefe said: > A computer program, in short, is *whatever we want it to be*. > (Within reasonable limits.) I agree with Richard's conclusion. >From where I sit, the critical point is that, unless you're breadboarding, pr

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote: Human *verbalisation* is fundamental, human *thinking* is not. Sigh. Accidentally lean on the wrong key and half your text disappears. Human *verbalisation* is fundamentally sequential. Human *thinking* is not. I don't know any sign langu

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote: It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is fundamentally sequential; parallel computers have been around for a little while now... You've never been talking on the phone while stirring a pot with one hand and wiping down a

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote: Sure. But what is a computer program? It depends on the computer. Classical machines do one thing, data flow machines do another, reduction machines another. I once saw a tiny machine at a UK university where the hardware was a combinator redu

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

May be because consciousness is relatively new and thus, not optimized. Sequentiallity is somehow related with lack of information and lack or resources. There is nothing more sequential than a Turing machine. The Von Newman architecture is designed to make as much as possible with a few more reso

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Tom Tobin wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is fundamentally sequential; parallel computers have been around for a little while now... Perhaps *conscious* human thinking is sequential — yet our brains a

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: > It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is fundamentally > sequential; parallel computers have been around for a little while now... Perhaps *conscious* human thinking is sequential — yet our brains are massively parallel pro

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

;) Off topic: Maybe the entire space time, the universe and his history, is isomorphic to a mathematical structure. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html 2009/10/1 Peter Verswyvelen > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Co

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that > tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition of > sum looks more like a definition of what a sum is rather than an actual, > usable procedure

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

2009/10/1 Curt Sampson > On 2009-10-01 08:53 +0100 (Thu), Andrew Coppin wrote: > > > Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that > > tells a computer *how to do something*. > > Some are. Some aren't, as proven by the Haskell definition of sum, which > is certainly a "

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On 2009-10-01 08:53 +0100 (Thu), Andrew Coppin wrote: > Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that > tells a computer *how to do something*. Some are. Some aren't, as proven by the Haskell definition of sum, which is certainly a "program." I like to think of a pro

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin : > Eugene Kirpichov wrote: >> >> 2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin : >> >>> >>> Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that >>> tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition >>> of >>> sum looks more like a definition of what a s

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Eugene Kirpichov wrote: 2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin : Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition of sum looks more like a definition of what a sum is rather than an actual, usable procedure for *

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin : > John Dorsey wrote: >>> >>> Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers. >>>  Most of them will say something about adding the first two together, >>>  adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step  by >>> step instruct

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Ketil Malde wrote: Although the question of how we "naturally" think often comes up, I'm not sure it's a very important one. In my experience, the natural thing for humans appear rather to be the absence of thinking, and instead slouching in front of the TV eating unhealthy food. After all, we

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

John Dorsey wrote: Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers. Most of them will say something about adding the first two together, adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step by step instructions. You word the (hypothetical) que

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Andrew Coppin writes: > Peter Verswyvelen wrote: >> I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even >> sure our thinking can be modeled with computing no? > Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of > numbers. Although the question of how we "naturally" t

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:10:19PM -0400, John Dorsey wrote: > > Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers. > > Most of them will say something about adding the first two together, > > adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step > > by

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

> Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers. > Most of them will say something about adding the first two together, > adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other words, the step > by step instructions. You word the (hypothetical) question with a bias

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:43:12PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of > numbers. Most of them will say something about adding the first two > together, adding the third to that total, and so forth. In other > words, the step by step instruc

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: > > > (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way, > and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular. We > shall see...) You could use the same argument against, say, utensils. Being "natural

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

I would say that pure knowledge is pure and functional. but human planning and problem solving is imperative because implies sequencing of operations based on this pure knowledge. haskell express both nicely. 2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin > Peter Verswyvelen wrote: > >> I really doubt people tend to t

Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Again, i missed to forward the message to the list: I experince also the drug effect. Evolutionary psychologists would say that, because it was vital for our survival, since the stone age, we appreciate any tool powerful enough to solve many problems while at the same time remain simple. So whene

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

В сообщении от 30 сентября 2009 15:58:40 Jochem Berndsen написал: > Deniz Dogan wrote: > > 2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin : > >> (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative > >> way, and therefore functional programming in general will never be > >> popular. > > > > Sounds more l

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Am Mittwoch 30 September 2009 09:32:08 schrieb Andrew Coppin: > I might also point out that 90% of all desktop computers run Windows, > and yet every single C library binding on Hackage fails to compile on > Windows. That really needs to be fixed. Contribute your share, switch to Linux or BSD 8-)

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that because someone uses an imperative way of counting, that it means people's brains work imperatively all the way. People tend to talk and communicate a lot in a declarative way no? For example ask someone that doesn't know programming how he we would make a paddleball

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Casey Hawthorne wrote: > >> I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, >> you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an >> imperative language. >> >> If this is true, it needs to be pushed.

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Peter Verswyvelen wrote: I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even sure our thinking can be modeled with computing no? Well, try this: Go ask a random person how you add up a list of numbers. Most of them will say something about adding the first two together, adding th

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

I really doubt people tend to think in either way. It's not even sure our thinking can be modeled with computing no? On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Jochem Berndsen wrote: > Deniz Dogan wrote: > > 2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin : > >> (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperativ

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Deniz Dogan wrote: > 2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin : >> (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way, >> and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular. > > Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way > because that's what he is u

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote: > I might also point out that 90% of all desktop computers run Windows, and > yet every single C library binding on Hackage fails to compile on Windows. > That really needs to be fixed. (Not to mention some of the standard I/O > functions doing

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Deniz Dogan wrote: 2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin : (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way, and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular. Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way because that's what he is use

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Yep, LINQ makes C# more enjoyable :-) Scala and haXe also look nice, a bit of a mix between OCaml/F#, C#/Java and Haskell. Besides the fact that hacking in Haskell is a great deal of fun, the main reason I see for learning Haskell: it makes you a better programmer. After a couple of years of play

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

2009/9/30 Andrew Coppin : > (Mr C++ argues that homo sapiens fundamentally think in an imperative way, > and therefore functional programming in general will never be popular. Sounds more like Mr C++ fundamentally thinks in an imperative way because that's what he is used to. I recently started w

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Casey Hawthorne wrote: I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language. If this is true, it needs to be pushed. And if by changing a few lines of source code one can develop a whole fa

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

We should have GHC 6.12 launch parties like the Windows 7 ones ;) (if you haven't seen it, and are feeling masochistic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ) Dan On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Casey Hawthorne wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:19:08 -0700, you wrote: > >>On Tue, Sep 29, 20

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:19:08 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Casey Hawthorne wrote: > >> I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, >> you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an >> imperative language. >> >> If this is true,

Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Casey Hawthorne wrote: > I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, > you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an > imperative language. > > If this is true, it needs to be pushed. > > And if by changing a few li

[Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language. If this is true, it needs to be pushed. And if by changing a few lines of source code one can develop a whole family of similar applicati