I completely agree that laziness enables a number of nice coding idioms and, as
Lennart described so eloquently, it does facilitate a combinator-based coding
style among other things:
http://augustss.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html
(Note that even Bob admits that
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dominique Devriese
wrote:
> What I find interesting is that he considers (non-)termination an
> effect, which Haskell does not manage to control like it does other
> types of effects. Dependently typed purely functional languages like
> Coq (or Agda if you prefer ;)
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
wrote:
>... Interestingly, today (at least the academic fraction of) the Haskell
>community appears to hold the purity of the language in higher regard than its
>laziness.
As someone who implemented Haskell with quite a bit less laziness,
2011/5/3 Manuel M T Chakravarty :
> Interestingly, today (at least the academic fraction of) the Haskell
> community appears to hold the purity of the language in higher
> regard than its laziness.
I find Greg Morissett's comment on Lennart Augustsson's article pro
lazy evaluation very interesting
For a historical perspective, I highly recommend The Definitive Account of the
History of Haskell:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/history-of-haskell/index.htm
Section 7 clearly and directly cites the desire to have pure I/O as the
motivation for adopting monads.
Tony Morris:
> Interesting how I have been authoring and subsequently using monads in
> scala for several years and it is strictness that gets in the way more
> than anything.
Just to make sure that I understand you correctly. You are saying that when
you use monads in Scala, then strictness mak
On 02/05/11 17:54, Ketil Malde wrote:
> I'm following Harper's blog, Existential Type¹, which I find to be an
> enjoyable and entertainingly written tirade about the advantages of
> teaching functional programming - specifically ML - to students. Of
> course, he tends to be critical of Haskell, bu
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Dominique Devriese
wrote:
> I agree with your analysis. Throughout his different articles, I think
> Harper partly has a point when he says that laziness brings certain
> disadvantages (like e.g. complex memory and CPU behaviour) to Haskell
> (although I disagree wi
2011/5/2 Ketil Malde :
> "There is a particular reason why monads had to arise in Haskell,
> though, which is to defeat the scourge of laziness."
>
> My own view is/was that monads were so successful in Haskell since it
> allowed writing flexible programs with imperative features, without
> sacr
On 2011-05-02 03:54, Ketil Malde wrote:
> "There is a particular reason why monads had to arise in Haskell,
>though, which is to defeat the scourge of laziness."
>
> I wonder if there are any other rationale for a statement like that?
He spends one paragraph dismissing the usefulness of ref
Yes, I'm following it too, and it seems to me that Harper just allows his
dislike for Haskell to take advantage of his judgement. Monads as a way to deal
with laziness are a very common misconception.
Отправлено с iPhone
May 2, 2011, в 11:54, Ketil Malde написал(а):
>
> I'm following Harper'
I'm following Harper's blog, Existential Type¹, which I find to be an
enjoyable and entertainingly written tirade about the advantages of
teaching functional programming - specifically ML - to students. Of
course, he tends to be critical of Haskell, but it's nice to get some
thought provoking opi
12 matches
Mail list logo
