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,
On Jan 27, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Dipankar Ray wrote:
thanks for the correction - very informative! that'll teach me to
just go to the opencourseware site at MIT only...
On that note, I'll point out that many (roughly half?) the
undergraduate CS majors at MIT do a 5 year combined bachelor's
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 13:29 +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or three talks to groups of
*non* functional programmers about why functional programming is
interesting and important. If you like, it's the same general goal as
John Hughes's
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
Isaac Dupree wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
and you can have
unboxed values in dynamically typed languages.
really? Sure that's possible as an optimization, but I thought that to
explicitly specify that would require a known static type. Or perhaps
the bit-tagging by which some Scheme
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
Hello Hans,
Sunday, January 27, 2008, 5:02:57 PM, you wrote:
studied at Moscow University in 89-91 and department of computer
languages still studied Lisp at those times (!). a few months ago i
This reminds me, I worked at a Dutch telecomm software production
company for a short while in
On Jan27, Dipankar Ray wrote:
What I mean by this is that if I look at the CS programs at Berkeley, MIT,
CMU, I don't see a huge emphasis on PL. Looking now at the MIT
opencourseware offerings in EECS, I see no undergrad course that suggests
that you'd learn anything about modern type
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
thanks for the correction - very informative! that'll teach me to just go
to the opencourseware site at MIT only...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Dan Licata wrote:
On Jan27, Dipankar Ray wrote:
What I mean by this is that if I look at the CS programs at Berkeley, MIT,
CMU, I don't see a huge
Evan Laforge wrote:
Java's just wordy like that. In python you'd say max(foos, key=lambda
x: x.update_time).
While this is true, I was also thinking of the typical audience SPJ
specified: senior technical people and managers. Most of these people
have heard of Python and Ruby, but see
On 1/26/08, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Chevalier * http://cs.pdx.edu/~tjc
Tim Chevalier wrote:
On 1/26/08, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 1/26/08, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Chevalier wrote:
This is true only if talking to people in high-income nations.
Even in low-income nations, its only false in the short term. If you
have skilled programmers with computers and Internet connections then
their wages
Tim Chevalier/Paul Johnson about cheap computers, expensive programmers
This is true only if talking to people in high-income nations.
Even in low-income nations, its only false in the short term. If you
have skilled programmers with computers and Internet connections then
their wages
Jerzy,
this is a very interesting point you bring up, from my perspective.
I should point out that certain US-trained mathematicans (myself included)
are actually quite jealous of the Russian math education system - they
produce mathematicians who tend to be excellent in depth and breadth,
Dipankar Ray writes:
I should point out that certain US-trained mathematicans (myself included)
are actually quite jealous of the Russian math education system - they
produce mathematicians who tend to be excellent...
Anyway, no we're older, and we realize that it would have helped our math
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, PLEASE, Artem V. Andreev, before you say plainly again that I am
definitely wrong. I didn't invent what I say, and I hope nobody can accuse
me of any inimical thoughts against Russians.
I had not the slightest intention to accuse you of anything. Nor did I want
Michael Reid wrote:
The
power of Haskell's type system makes it feel like you are programming in
a dynamic language to some degree, yet all of it is type-checked, and
that is just *really* cool.
to some degree, (in current Haskell compilers), it *is* more like a
dynamic than a static
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 20:49 -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
Michael Reid wrote:
The
power of Haskell's type system makes it feel like you are programming in
a dynamic language to some degree, yet all of it is type-checked, and
that is just *really* cool.
to some degree, (in
Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
I'm still very much a newbie, but the one thing that struck me as the
best feature coming from Python is the static typing. Changing the
type of a function in Python will lead to strange runtime errors that
take some work to debug, whereas, when I tinker with a program in
On Jan 23, 2008 8:29 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or three talks to groups of *non*
functional programmers about why functional programming is interesting and
important. If you like, it's the same general goal as John
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
1. Small examples of actual code. The goal here is (a) to convey a visceral idea of what functional programming *is*, rather than just assume the audience knows (they don't), and (b) to convey an idea of why it might be good.
Here is one I came across in the last few
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:11 +, Paul Johnson wrote:
[snip]
// Get the Foo that was most recently updated.
Foo latestUpdate (Iterator Foo iterator) {
[...]
}
This takes an iterator over some collection of Foos and finds the one
with the highest value of updateTime. 9
This takes an iterator over some collection of Foos and finds the one
with the highest value of updateTime. 9 lines of code, or 12 with the
closing curly brackets.
In Haskell this is so short and obvious you probably wouldn't bother
declaring it as a function, but if you did, here it is:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
Well... ghc still has a single-threaded garbage collector, so all the
par threads must stop for garbage collection. So scaling to the
level of a cluster would be significantly sub-linear.
A real time incremental gc would be really cool. Some
A real time incremental gc would be really cool. Some people claim
they exist, but which languages have one?
Define real time. I'll note that, after all the mud that's been
slung at Java, you've been able to get low-pause-time parallel GC in
Java for years and years, and can get real
On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
Java's just wordy like that. In python you'd say max(foos, key=lambda
x: x.update_time). Python / perl / ruby / smalltalk have had first
class functions forever, so those are basically already in the
mainstream. They may impress a java or C
On 24 Jan 2008, at 3:04 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
This takes an iterator over some collection of Foos and finds the one
with the highest value of updateTime. 9 lines of code, or 12 with
the
closing curly brackets.
In Haskell this is so short and obvious you probably wouldn't bother
declaring
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or three talks to groups of *non*
functional programmers about why functional programming is interesting and
important. If you like, it's the same general goal as John Hughes's famous
paper Why functional programming matters.
Audience: some are
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or three talks to groups of *non*
functional programmers about why functional programming is interesting and
important. If you like, it's the same general goal as John Hughes's famous
paper Why functional
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
1. Small examples of actual code. The goal here is (a) to convey a
visceral idea of what functional programming *is*, rather than just
assume the audience knows (they don't), and (b) to convey an idea of why
it might be good. One of my
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 13:29 +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
1. Small examples of actual code. The goal here is (a) to convey a
visceral idea of what functional programming *is*, rather than just
assume the audience knows (they don't), and (b) to convey an idea of
why it might be good.
Hello,
On Jan 23, 2008 5:29 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or three talks to groups of *non*
functional programmers about why functional programming is interesting and
important. If you like, it's the same general goal as John
This is pure general waffle, but I saw the following comment on reddit.com
which impressed me:
C isn't hard; programming in C is hard. On the other hand: Haskell is hard,
but programming in Haskell is easy.
Mike
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Friends
Over the next few months I'm giving two or
45 matches
Mail list logo
