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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.