On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.comwrote:
[T]he Monad m = in the signature really means hey, compiler, pass me
the appropriate implementation of Monad so I can figure out what I'm doing
with this type m. It's not a built in table, it's a hidden parameter.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:27 PM, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, hidden - it *is* right there in the type signature still, it just
doesn't *look* like an argument.
If you squint hard enough, (=) looks like (-). Or maybe the other way
round. Whatever. :)
It also might be
There have been lots of proposals to fix the CATCALL problems in recent
years. None have been implemented (at least in ISE/GEC compilers. And
tecomp has been abandonded by its author - he is now writing a series of
blogs about a vapourware product called Modern Eiffel).
I don't find the CATCALL
Anyway, Type checking is essentially an application of set theory : (I did
no search in te literature for this, It is just my perception). When I say
(+) :: Num a = a - a - a . I mean that (+) takes two elements of the
set of Num typeclass and return another. This is in principle a weak
On 01/03/2013 10:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Anyway, Type checking is essentially an application of set theory : (I
did no search in te literature for this, It is just my perception).
Not exactly. Type theory is not an application of set theory, it is an
alternative to set theory.
When
On 01/02/2013 11:19 PM, MigMit wrote:
On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:09 AM, Gershom Bazerman gersh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object, and
this call
On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a
On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
I said theoratical, but not mathematical or a scientific theory.
Than what kind of theory did you mean?
image1.gif Meyer have built a quite coherent construction in comparison
with other OOP langs.
More than
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:48:07 +0400
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until
Well, we can say "concepts" in place of "theory". And I'm comparing Eiffel with other OOP lang, not with some langs based on a solid math theory (lambda calcules for FP langs, for example). ok? DbC is not the same as "assert macros". First, it has a lang semantic. There is an interesting
Opps... I forgot about Eiffel agents! PS. After participationing in this discussion I'm tempting to reread Meyer's book after 10 years interval, to have a detailed look at the eiffel from the FP position. When I read this book first I know nothing about FP.
On 2013-01-02, at 4:41 AM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
On 2013-01-02, at 7:56 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
You should read OOSC2. You'll find that this is completely consistent with
it. Don't forget that the 'C' in OOSC2 is 'contraction'.
'Construction' of course… the automated spell checker is not my friend :-(
Hi,
First, I see (posts on this mailing list) that OO ideas are well known
in functional community :)
So my questions for you all are:
* Is it really worthwhile for me to learn OO-programming?
Learn or not to learn? I would say: yes! There is whole new universe
to discover: UML,
On 2013-01-02, at 1:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove something
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
Well, we can say concepts in place of theory. And I'm comparing Eiffel
with other OOP lang, not with some langs based on a solid math theory (lambda
calcules for FP langs, for example). ok?
I agree that there are
2) prepost conditions and class invariants have defined behaviour in cases
of inheritance, even/especially multiple inheritance. They are combined
non-trivially in subclasses. Without this I don't think you have DbC.
Yes, I forgot about that. Thanks.
Feel free to enlighten me about these
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object, and
this call compiles, you can't be certain that this object actually has this
method. Could be that this object belongs to
On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:09 AM, Gershom Bazerman gersh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object,
and this call compiles, you can't be certain that this
On 2012-12-31, at 4:26 PM, Rico Moorman rico.moor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bob and Mike,
Reading a little within the suggested book I came across the following
statement.
We should first examine the merits and limitations of the traditional
approach: using
functions as a basis for
Eiffel, for my opinion, is a best OOP language. Meyer use a theoretical approach as it is possible in OOP. 01.01.2013, 23:56, "Bob Hutchison" hutch-li...@recursive.ca:On 2012-12-31, at 4:26 PM, Rico Moorman rico.moor...@gmail.com wrote:Hello Bob and Mike, Reading a little within the suggested book
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru
wrote:
Eiffel, for my opinion, is a best OOP language. Meyer use a
theoretical approach as it is possible in OOP.
Really? Because when I studied it I had a very different impression:
that
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful approach,
but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually prove something
about it, and Eiffel doesn't seem to offer anything in
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
On 12/31/12 4:26 PM, Rico Moorman wrote:
Hello Bob and Mike,
Reading a little within the suggested book I came across the following
statement.
We should first examine the merits and limitations of the traditional
approach: using
functions as a basis for the architecture of software systems.
I said "theoratical", but not "mathematical" or "a scientific" theory. Meyer have built a quite coherent construction in comparison with other OOP langs. BTW, when I started study haskell i had similar question: is it possible to add DbC to haskell? Does haskell need DbC?For example, class
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove something about it, and Eiffel doesn't seem to offer anything in
this
Daniel Díaz Casanueva wrote:
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
in the functional paradigm. Eventually, I had to program in Pascal and
Prolog for my University (where I learned Haskell). I also did some PHP,
SQL and HTML while
Disclaimer: My own experience with OO is limited.
On 30/12/2012, Daniel Díaz Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
in the functional paradigm. Eventually, I had to program in Pascal and
Prolog for my University (where
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Strake strake...@gmail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: My own experience with OO is limited.
Mine isn't quite so much...
On 30/12/2012, Daniel Díaz Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
in
On 2012-12-30, at 2:58 PM, Daniel Díaz Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, my curiosity is bringing me to learn a new general purpose programming
language. Haskellers are frequently comparing Object-Oriented languages with
Haskell itself, but I have never programmed in any
Since you have done a significant amount of work with Haskell, I must
presume you have a solid understanding of monads. If so, I can suggest
reading
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2704652/monad-in-plain-english-for-the-oop-programmer-with-no-fp-background/13656209#13656209
It is for the OO
Hello Bob and Mike,
Reading a little within the suggested book I came across the following
statement.
We should first examine the merits and limitations of the traditional
approach: using
functions as a basis for the architecture of software systems. This will
not only lead us to
appreciate
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Rico Moorman rico.moor...@gmail.comwrote:
We should first examine the merits and limitations of the traditional
approach: using
functions as a basis for the architecture of software systems. This will
not only lead us to
Because you both have more
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
in the functional paradigm. Eventually, I had to program in Pascal and
Prolog for my University (where I learned Haskell). I also did some PHP,
SQL and HTML while building some web sites,
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, Daniel D??az Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
in the functional paradigm. Eventually, I had to program in Pascal and
Prolog for my University (where I learned
Well, functional programmer is a relatively broad term. If you're coming from
academia, so that for you Haskell is some sort of lambda-calculus, spoiled by
practical aspects, then I'd suggest Luca Cardelli's book Theory of Objects.
Also, as Daniel told you already, don't start from C++, it
Sorry for the stupid mistake — when I said Daniel in the previous message,
I've meant Jay.
Отправлено с iPad
30.12.2012, в 23:58, Daniel Díaz Casanueva dhelta.d...@gmail.com написал(а):
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always been
I think it is always a good idea to learn languages that make
your-favorite-paradigm hard. There are a lot of Aha moments to be had
from forcing your brain to come at a problem from another angle.
As for things to watch out for.
There is a very strong duality between TypeClasses and existential
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Eli Frey eli.lee.f...@gmail.com wrote:
mconcat :: Monad m = [m] - m
mconcat = foldl mappend []
We can think of `mconcat` having a little lookup table inside of itself,
and whenever we pass it a concrete `[m]`, `mappend` gets looked up and we
get the
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Daniel Díaz Casanueva
dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has started about 3-4 years ago) has always
been in the functional paradigm. Eventually, I had to program in Pascal and
Prolog for my University (where I
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
Ive been collecting material regarding (confusions around) OO. Its far
from complete but the references may be useful, eg
- the Rees list on the different things that OO means to different people
- the fundamental
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, functional programmer is a relatively broad term. If
you're coming from academia, so that for you Haskell is some
sort of lambda-calculus, spoiled by practical aspects, then I'd
suggest Luca Cardelli's book Theory of Objects.
Since no one's mentioned it yet, you might consider learning Scala. A good
starting point is http://www.artima.com/pins1ed/index.html (note that the
free edition is outdated but still a good introduction).
Scala has a mix of functional and OO programming styles, though (having
come first from
There's OOHaskell, which you can google for. The name's such a nice example
of an aptronym: it's the Overlooked Object-oriented Haskell.
-- Kim-Ee
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Daniel Díaz Casanueva
dhelta.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Haskell Cafe folks.
My programming life (which has
46 matches
Mail list logo
