It is interesting to look at what Julia has done to get numerical performance
from a dynamic language
http://julialang.org/
and julia's visibility in to the internal representation
http://blog.leahhanson.us/julia-introspects.html
Regards,
Todd Olson
If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is the syntactic
sugar similar to perl 5's overload, but with Object/Class support, support
for autoboxing and a way, either by convention or configuration of
facilitating type conversion and degradation?
So one could write something like:
if
On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Steve Pitchford wrote:
> How would you implement, in a robust way, the following things:
>
> 1 kg + 1 kg = 2 kg
> 2 m * 3 m = 6 m^2
> 5 kg * (3 m/s)^2 = 45 J
>
> The answer is that you wouldn't - the problem domain is so vague as to be
> meaningless. 1kg or 1m of w
bly needed, but it tackles the inherent
>> disjoint between purchase and sale quantities without any complex, over
>> generic modelling of the relationships between trays of apples and weights
>> or other quantities sold on the shopfloor.
>>
>> The fragmentation of th
over
> generic modelling of the relationships between trays of apples and weights
> or other quantities sold on the shopfloor.
>
> The fragmentation of the system in this way also allows the canny grocer
> to flog bags of mixed fruit without worrying that his software developer
I think James Bowery's comments are intended to address a real need for
programming languages to work with units of measurement. It might even
prevent aircraft accidents which have really happened because fuel was
delivered in Canadian gallons, or kilograms, when the pilots request was
for American
At 20:27 -0700 8/20/13, Jonathan Lang wrote: Off list accidentally I think.
>Could you try to put commensurability into layman's terms? Preferably with a
>focus on some of its less obvious advantages.
>
>On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
>
>> At 11:41 -0400 8/20/13, yary wrote:
>
The terms "function" and "relation" as used in programming languages have
meanings carved out of the pure concepts by the, sometimes, judicious
application of Ockham's Chainsaw Massacre in order to "get things done".
I am speaking of the pure concepts.
Procedures are sequences of statements. Sta
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
> I confess. I'm here because I hoped perl 6 would do vector operations
> after reading an early small book.
I don't think anyone has said that it won't/can't. Perl 6 indeed returns a
scalar... but that scalar may be a container of some kind,
Hello,
some clarifications below
On 08/21/2013 05:19 AM, Doug McNutt wrote:
>> * a "function" is a subroutine returning a scalar ( see below)
fwiw we don't make that distinction in the specification; we just talk
about subroutines. We can return nothing, a scalar or a non-scalar.
>>, a "pr
At 11:41 -0400 8/20/13, yary wrote:
>I'll bite... this concept of "commensurablity" is not one I grasp from
>your email.
>
>"functions are (sugarably) degenerate (many to 1) relations and
>procedures are (sugarably) degenerate (state-transition) functions."
>Perl & many other languages don't have a
I'll bite... this concept of "commensurablity" is not one I grasp from
your email.
"functions are (sugarably) degenerate (many to 1) relations and
procedures are (sugarably) degenerate (state-transition) functions."
Perl & many other languages don't have a strong distinction between
functions & pr
Maybe Perl 7.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's get the basics nailed down and working so that we can learn
> them, before wandering any further into theoretical CS.
>
> On 8/18/13, James Bowery wrote:
> > Of the two key conceptual gaps in curren
Let's get the basics nailed down and working so that we can learn
them, before wandering any further into theoretical CS.
On 8/18/13, James Bowery wrote:
> Of the two key conceptual gaps in current programming language philosophy
> -- commensurability and change propagation -- commensurability, i
14 matches
Mail list logo
