From: Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@...>
Date: 2011-04-04T21:41:21+09:00
Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over

--0016e64cb1ea5366d804a0170870
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote:

> is this a good book to read to grok functional programming,
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
>
> I have done some lisp but interested in gaining the skillset with ruby,
>
> any nice thick comp sci books for recommendation?
>
>
I haven't gone through it yet, but I have a PDF version I can upload if you
don't like the html format of that one. It should be understood, though,
that Ruby's functional support isn't the same as that of the purely
functional languages. That isn't to suggest you won't get insights from that
book, I know a lot of relevant people who have recommended it (ie Uncle Bob,
and Rick DeNetale).


On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Everett L Williams II
<rett@classicnet.net>wrote:

> *You have restated my point in much more pleasant language, and with
> commendable precision.
>
>
Hmm, I thought he deserved to be chastised for making a post almost 90% of
which was about databases. It fits quite nicely with the hypothesis that
he's just trolling.


On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com>wrote:

> > I've seen some absolutely amazing things done with befunge!  Networked
> > programs, even.  Which is more than excel can do.
>
> Sorry, what with all the bullshit I forgot to provide any evidence of
> this fact:
> http://zem.fi/~fis/fungot.b98.txt
>
>
Amusingly, you added this on a whim, but it's more evidence than the Excel
proponents (sorry, I mean "S# programmers") have provided, despite several
explicit requests for clarification and examples.

--0016e64cb1ea5366d804a0170870--