Re: Lambda Shambda

On 03.04.2011 09:48, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Mike Stephens<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> But the other point is why does everybody make languages so difficult
>> these days?

I am not sure I fully agree to this observation.  First, I believe 
languages are rather becoming simpler than more complex these days.  On 
the other hand with increased power of hardware and increased volume of 
library code the problems that we tackle today are becoming increasingly 
complex.  Also, the mere fact that we need to utilize concurrency to 
solve problems (because single CPU isn't going to grow that much in the 
near future) does make applications more complex.

>> I have a degree in Physics but couldn't face trying to
>> unravel F# or Haskell. Don't tell me trying to fathom out complex
>> recursive functions is a good way to spend your day.
>
> Argument from authority. That you have a physics degree doesn't make
> you a programmer. Nor does it make you particularly smart nor stupid,
> or gives you the mindset a programmer should have. It makes you a
> physicist, nothing more. That's kind of like saying that a bookkeeper
> is a programmer because (s)he uses spreadsheets.
>
> And really, if you have problems with recursiveness, I dare say that
> you didn't enjoy college, considering the importance of maths in the
> natural sciences. Just plain ol' acceleration is a recursive function:
> changes of velocity over time are easiest calculated by recursion,
> wouldn't you say?
>
> Functional programming requires a particularly, let's say
> anal-retentive, mindset, given the importance of type safety, and that
> variables, usually, aren't variables. On the flipside, it makes
> concurrency easier, and is a boon for critical code (you know,
> robotics, MRI scanners,&c.).

Personally what I find most difficult to grasp about functional 
programming is not the paradigm itself but rather the feature of Lisp 
that macros and functions are syntactically indistinguishable.  While 
this makes for elegant solutions on one hand it can be confusing to read 
on the other (and just think about the various quoting mechanisms of 
Lisp).  YMMV though.

>> Of course, you have to encourage people to invent Lambda Calculus and
>> then turn it into a computing language but such university thesis ideas
>> shouldn't be seen as the model for real world products.
>
> Yet there were ~7000 LISP machines sold (at, say, 100 000 per unit,
> that's still quite a bit of revenue):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine

Even if there weren't where's the argument?  All engineering is based on 
results of science of one form or another (and math is often one of 
them).  If research turns up something which can be used to model real 
world phenomena of a particular class more efficiently than other 
approaches then it should (and will) be used.  There's still enough room 
to apply other approaches and nobody forces Mike to go functional, does he?

Kind regards

	robert


-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/