On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name wrote:
I'd like to convince people at our university to pay more attention to
functional languages, especially Haskell. Their arguments were that
(1) Functional programming is more academic than practical.
(2) They are using
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 00:24 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
. . .
and the primary way to make haskell program faster is to emulate
imperative language. and the best way to optimize C program is to use
it as cpu-independent assembler.
it's all natural in von-Neumann world and i personally
The middle road could be Curry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry, sorry,
this Curry http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/, a functional-logic
language. I know that curry has gained a lot of interest from prolog
programmers. There are compilers from Curry to Prolog. It is a haskell 98
are you a student (undergrad or grad) or faculty (junior or senior)? These
are all very different scenarios and accordingly different goals are
realistic.
For example, if you're a student, it might be more realistic to start with
finding a professor who will be willing to supervise an
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:36:27AM -0400, Carter Schonwald wrote:
are you a student (undergrad or grad) or faculty (junior or senior)? These
are all very different scenarios and accordingly different goals are
realistic.
I'm a faculty member (postdoc). I've been working in the field of
Have you considered say proposing a class on theorem proving that uses coq?
www.*coq*.inria.fr http://www.coq.inria.fr . Such a class would entail
teaching how to program using the coq term language, which is itself a pure
functional language, albeit one with some restrictions related to
That's actually a good idea. I haven't considered this alternative so far,
probably because I have always been working with first-order theorem provers.
But I guess eventually I'll merge my interests in ATP and FP and start doing
some serious work with higher-order theorem provers like coq or
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:25, Petr Pudlakd...@pudlak.name wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to convince people at our university to pay more attention to
functional languages, especially Haskell. Their arguments were that
(1) Functional programming is more academic than practical.
Which, even
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 12:25 +0200, Petr Pudlak wrote:
(2) is harder for me, since I've never programmed in Prolog or another
language
for logic programming. I'd be happy if anyone who is experienced in both
Prolog
and Haskell could elaborate the differences, pros cons etc.
I have done
Hello Bill,
Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:01:27 AM, you wrote:
I have done some real-world programming in Prolog and SML. The
conventional wisdom in the LP community seems to be that the primary
path to performance improvement of logic programs is by reduction of
non-determinism.
and the
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to convince people at our university to pay more attention to
functional languages, especially Haskell. Their arguments were that
(1) Functional programming is more academic than practical.
(2) They
: [Haskell-cafe] funct.prog. vs logic prog., practical Haskell
Hi all,
I'd like to convince people at our university to pay more attention to
functional languages, especially Haskell. Their arguments were that
(1) Functional programming is more academic than practical.
(2) They are using
12 matches
Mail list logo
