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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.