Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [extremeperl] Book: Higher Order Perl

Expand Messages
  • Adam Turoff
    ... Higher order programming is a solid win. This is one of the main points behind functional programming in general, and Haskell in particular. (And, while
    Message 1 of 58 , Mar 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Rob Nagler wrote:
      > Adam Turoff writes:
      >> The net effect of being a purely functional language is that Haskell
      >> forces you to decompose problems differently.
      >
      > I always thought that was the customer's job. ;-) Seriously, is there
      > any evidence that forcing programs to decompose problems the Haskell
      > way is any better than the Perl way?

      Higher order programming is a solid win. This is one of the main points
      behind functional programming in general, and Haskell in particular.
      (And, while we're on the subject, HOP. ;-)

      I can't compare Haskell to Perl directly, but there was an interesting
      comparison between Haskell and a handful of other languages about 11
      years
      ago. The net result is that the Haskell implementations were more
      featureful, more concise, and took significantly less time to write than
      the alternatives:

      http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~apt/cs457_2003/hudak-jones.pdf

      There are similar anecdotal results from programming competitions over
      the last few years. But again, no direct comparisons to Perl.

      > http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/HaskellDbTutorial
      >
      > Do you have experience with this? Is it better to program this way
      > than with good old SQL?

      Haven't tried that yet. But I haven't seen anything that would
      preclude using more standard database handling idioms, or talking
      directly to the PostgreSQL stack.

      > Compiling, how quaint. :-) I've got a friend who programs Eiffel for
      > a living. He waits 20 mins for the compiler to work things out before
      > he can run an acceptance test.

      I won't speak to Eiffel. I don't see how that's relevant to why there
      is or isn't a compelling reason to learn Haskell or other functional
      languages.

      > I haven't found the
      > lack of type safety in Perl to be hindrance in performance or quality
      > so I'd like to see some evidence that programming in a type safe
      > language is any better for the customer. Are there any studies out
      > there that compare programming Perl vs Haskell to do the same job?

      Um, that's quite a non-sequitur.

      I thought the issue was why it's worthwhile to learn a functional
      language,
      now that Higher Order Perl is out. No one is talking about ditching
      Perl
      for Haskell, or anything beyond finding a few more ways to do it.


      If you can't justify learning a language like Haskell, don't sweat it.
      Just buy a copy of Higher Order Perl for your desk, a copy for your
      your night table, a copy for your backpack, a couple of copies to lend
      to your friends and colleagues, and a copy to keep on the coffee table
      to flip through during halftime. ;-)

      -- Adam
    • Tom Vilot
      ... Wait. That sounds like Rob .... ;c) (kidding) ... Wait. That *also* sounds like Rob ... ... (not kidding!)
      Message 58 of 58 , Apr 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Greg C wrote:

        >
        >
        > Consider: projects A and B have identical goals. In project A, you
        > have free
        > rein in your choice of software and hardware tools. However, the
        > manager sets
        > arbitrary deadlines, likes to stand behind people and criticize their
        > code as
        > they type,


        Wait. That sounds like Rob ....
        ;c) (kidding)

        > On project B, the choice of langauge and hardware are made for you and
        > there's
        > only one computer per two programmers. On the other hand, the manager
        > sees his
        > people as people, negotiates requirements and schedules on a realistic
        > basis,
        > trusts his people, follows a set of best practices (be it XP or some
        > other) and
        > chases everyone out of the office at 5:30.


        Wait. That *also* sounds like Rob ...

        :c)

        (not kidding!)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.