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

Re: Turing Complete, was Re: [extremeperl] Logic Programming in Perl -- Just say no

Expand Messages
  • Rob Nagler
    ... What does Perl encourage? More importantly, what does it discourage, particularly in the realm of functional programming. ... The problem with this
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Shae Matijs Erisson writes:
      > In my opinion, the most useful criteria for comparing languages is:
      > What do those languages encourage? What do they discourage?

      What does Perl encourage? More importantly, what does it discourage,
      particularly in the realm of functional programming.

      > Personally, I don't believe that you can learn all that Haskell has to teach
      > from within Perl.

      The problem with this argument is that you are saying Haskell is doing
      the teaching, when it is in fact the Haskell community and literature
      that does the teaching. A functional language does not make a
      functional programmer.

      > But, I would be happy for you to prove me wrong. Why not show
      > up on the #perl6 channel and work on Pugs? Then you can use both Perl and
      > Haskell at the same time!

      Not interested. I haven't found a problem that I needed Haskell to
      solve. When I do, I'll sign up.

      Rob
    • Curtis Poe
      ... I can hammer in nails. I can hammer in screws. I can hammer boards in half. All I need is a hammer. I was actually going to respond to other comments
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Apr 4, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Rob Nagler wrote:

        > Not interested.  I haven't found a problem that I needed Haskell to
        > solve.  When I do, I'll sign up.

        I can hammer in nails. I can hammer in screws. I can hammer boards in
        half. All I need is a hammer.

        I was actually going to respond to other comments you made in this
        email but then I started reading through some of the earlier email
        before I joined this group. It's obvious that I'm wasting my time and
        yours.

        Cheers,
        Ovid

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Shae Matijs Erisson
        ... Right, ok then. I m wasting my time and yours. -- Programming is the Magic Executable Fridge Poetry, | www.ScannedInAvian.com It is machines made of
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Rob Nagler <nagler@...> writes:

          >> But, I would be happy for you to prove me wrong. Why not show
          >> up on the #perl6 channel and work on Pugs? Then you can use both Perl and
          >> Haskell at the same time!
          >
          > Not interested. I haven't found a problem that I needed Haskell to
          > solve. When I do, I'll sign up.

          Right, ok then. I'm wasting my time and yours.
          --
          Programming is the Magic Executable Fridge Poetry, | www.ScannedInAvian.com
          It is machines made of thought, fueled by ideas. | -- Shae Matijs Erisson
        • Rob Kinyon
          ... I don t know if this is going to become a habit, but I m with Rob on this one. Not because I think Haskell is useless or that FP is useless. (My posts on
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > Not interested. I haven't found a problem that I needed Haskell to
            > solve. When I do, I'll sign up.

            I don't know if this is going to become a habit, but I'm with Rob on
            this one. Not because I think Haskell is useless or that FP is
            useless. (My posts on Perlmonks should be proof enough of that!) And,
            I'm also not saying that Perl is the be-all-end-all of programming
            languages ... Paul Graham's Blub, so to speak.

            What I am saying is that I have solved with Perl all the problems I
            have run into since learning Perl. This isn't to say I couldn't have
            used Haskell (or something else) nor am I saying that Haskell wouldn't
            have been a better choice. I'm saying Perl has been an adequate
            choice.

            Now, I'm not a Perl-only bigot. I'm happily delving into Javascript
            (which is more FP than Perl). I just don't have the tuits to learn a
            language that I can't give excuses for right now to my wife.
            Javascript lets me play with Ajax. P6 ... I'd love to get on that
            train, but I can't get side-contracts with it ... yet.

            I'm also considering a way to make coderefs a first-class datatype in
            Perl the way they are in Haskell or Lisp. But, I need to think some
            more, first.

            Rob
          • Curtis Poe
            ... The difference here is that you admit that other languages may be superior choices for things but you don t have the tuits to to learn them. You
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Rob Kinyon wrote:

              > >  Not interested.  I haven't found a problem that I needed Haskell to
              > >  solve.  When I do, I'll sign up.
              >
              > I don't know if this is going to become a habit, but I'm with Rob on
              > this one. Not because I think Haskell is useless or that FP is
              > useless.

              <snip>

              The difference here is that you admit that other languages may be
              superior choices for things but you don't have the tuits to to learn
              them. You came off sounding reasonable in this email.

              Nagler's comment, on the other hand, was a real howler. I've said some
              pretty stupid things in my time and while it's painful to do, I
              frequently come around to admitting it. In the long run, it doesn't
              help me to say stupid things, but publicly admitting when I'm wrong
              buys me credibility. (Publicly saying things like this possibly hurts
              that credibility, though)

              Cheers,
              Ovid
            • Rob Nagler
              ... In other words, you have a technical problem that your customer doesn t want to pay for. :-) ... Please keep us informed on this list. To the people who
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Rob Kinyon writes:
                > I just don't have the tuits to learn a
                > language that I can't give excuses for right now to my wife.

                In other words, you have a technical problem that your customer
                doesn't want to pay for. :-)

                > I'm also considering a way to make coderefs a first-class datatype in
                > Perl the way they are in Haskell or Lisp. But, I need to think some
                > more, first.

                Please keep us informed on this list.

                To the people who think they were going to convert somebody to
                Haskell: When I say I haven't found a problem that I couldn't solve in
                Perl, I am saying that Perl is good enough. It isn't saying Perl is a
                hammer (or a swiss army chainsaw ;-), or that I haven't learned by
                working on projects in other languages. It merely states that Perl
                contains all the abstractions I have needed to solve the
                problems I have thus far encountered.

                Suppose that I was building hard real-time systems. Perl is missing
                some fundamental abstractions to help me get there. Undoubtedly, I
                would encounter a problem that Perl didn't handle well. At that
                point, I would hit CPAN, which probably wouldn't help in this case. I
                might decide to add time constraints to Perl subroutines. The process
                model would depend on the deployment platform, but there probably
                would be an API for that, which Perl would allow me to attach to very
                easily. This is how any XP programmer should start out. Otherwise,
                it's not XP.

                Would I be re-inventing the wheel? No. I would be doing what I do on
                a daily basis: trading off build vs buy. Or, if you prefer, time
                vs. space (money). Does Haskell contain interesting concepts? Yup.
                However, the concepts are trivial to copy into Perl. If they weren't,
                there wouldn't be so many different functional programming languages
                out there.

                I have written a variety of operating systems. Some would say that
                Perl is not suited to the task. They are possibly right, but then
                again nobody has tried afaik. It's not something you are supposed to
                do.

                Recently, someone was asked in a talk: how would you use XP to build
                an operating system? Having built an operating system in a very
                iterative fashion, I would argue it's been done already. You start
                with the simplest thing that could possibly work, say context
                switching, for one computer. You then expand from there. Remember
                that Linux was PC only until a couple of years ago. Everybody thought
                Linus was building a non-portable, monolith, but now Linux is one of
                the most robust and most portable operating systems in the world. I
                would argue it's probably the only operating system you need!

                More fodder for the global conspiracy. :-)

                Rob
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.