Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Couldn't agree more. I think HASKELL and OCAML are well on the way to being the next big think in development and I wait with bated breath for ARC.
  • Joel alludes to this, but I wonder if part of the growth of functional languages will be that they're much easier to optimize for concurrency than languages with side effects.

    • I can't speak for Joel, but in my experience, a big reason why the wave is hitting now instead of 10 or 20 years ago, is because Moore's law has finally crossed some barrier that makes these languages workable.

      Take ghc, for example. On my 4-year old G3, ghc 6.4.2 took about 14 hours to bootstrap. gcc, by comparsion might take as much as an hour or two to do a full 3-stage bootstrap (vs. ghc's 1.5/2 stages). Also, on a "simple" Haskell program, there is a noticable amount of time to compile (either to pro
  • Good entry, and the article referenced is cool as well (Joel is right sometimes :-)

    Don't miss Joel link to Steve's Rant: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html [blogspot.com]

    Excellent as well.

    And I'm on to your Haskell presentation!

    As for concurrency, I know Erlang-like concurrency is perfect for declarative languages, you can get a similar thing (i.e. Communicating Sequential Processes: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CommunicatingSequentialProcesses [c2.com]) in Scheme (as the easiest language to see a
    --
    $ pugs -M6 -e 'say "use 6 :)"'
    use 6 :)
    • As for concurrency, I know Erlang-like concurrency is perfect for declarative languages, you can get a similar thing (...) in Scheme (...)

      Actually, you can get exactly the same thing in Scheme. Just use Termite [toute.ca]. (Probably not ready for prime time, but under actively development.)

      any easy way to use hugs w/o emacs??

      Um, yeah. On the command line. But I use ghc[i].

      • Ah, that's really interesting! (Termite) I'll check it out, thanks!

        Of course, having the source on a window and the CLI with readline or a similar line-editor in another (or different screen, anyway) will be all that's needed... forgot to :load *grin*

        thanks!!

        PS- off to try and understand Pugs!
        --
        $ pugs -M6 -e 'say "use 6 :)"'
        use 6 :)
  • is it possible to see the tutorial online?
  • You honestly think that in a mere 10 years, it will be impossible to get a job as a C programmer? We'll have operating systems written in Haskell and word processors written in Erlang?

    C was being used to write operating systems 33 years ago, and it's still going strong. There will always be a call for a language that lets you be somewhat platform-independent while still giving you the ability to get very close to the bare metal.

    There is a place for functional programming--many places, as a matter of fac

    • You honestly think that in a mere 10 years, it will be impossible to get a job as a C programmer?

      Um, read the footnote again. That assertion is as valid (and as plausible) as the assertion that today, August 2006, the number of Perl Monger groups is very nearly the same as the number of people on the planet (+/- ~10%), and by this time next year, the number of Perl Monger groups will exceed the human population of the Earth by roughly 10x.

    • It doesn't seem too far off to me. Bare metal gets further and further from the PDP-11 every day.

    • In 10 years time, if you're programming in C, it will be because you're programming a burglar alarm or a fridge. Possibly an operating system, although I suspect l4 style microkernels will have made inroads, and most OS code will be running in "user space" and might be written in Haskell.

      However, a game, a word processor, a network daemon, you'd be writing in Haskell, Perl, or perhaps Java (but by then, Java will probably look very Haskelly, and Perl 6 already does).
      • However, a game, a word processor, a network daemon, you'd be writing in Haskell, Perl, or perhaps Java (but by then, Java will probably look very Haskelly, and Perl 6 already does).

        I'm not so sure.

        First, C will never completely die. Assembly language is still useful, even if it isn't used by 99.44% of programmers. But the idea of assembly language is still very useful, and still deserves to be one of many cornerstones of any good CS degree. And, periodically, the idea of assembly is useful when

  • Couldn't find the presentation "Introduction to Haskell", do you have it online somewhere.