2011/5/3 Manuel M T Chakravarty c...@cse.unsw.edu.au:
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
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
c...@cse.unsw.edu.au 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
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dominique Devriese
dominique.devri...@cs.kuleuven.be 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
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
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 ke...@malde.org написал(а):
I'm
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
2011/5/2 Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org:
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,
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Dominique Devriese
dominique.devri...@cs.kuleuven.be 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
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, but
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 makes
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
