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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
