Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- From: Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:32:49 +0100
Pertti Kellomäki wrote:
Slobodan Blazeski kirjoitti:On Mar 10, 11:42 pm, Pertti Kellomäki <pertti.kellom...@xxxxxx> wrote:Even when coming fromThis is the only point we disagree too much, the rest of the post
a functionalish language like Lisp, the purely functional way of
thinking does require some getting used to.
we're pretty much Ok.
The problem is that you're mixing purely functional way with static
typing.
Yes, sloppy writing from my part. Should have written "SML-Haskell
style of functional thinking" or something like that.
Much of the power of functional programming comes from higher order
functions. If you throw in lazy evaluation, it would be pretty much
impossible to reason about functions that can have side-effects.
It is not purely coincidental that expressive type systems and
functional programming often go hand in hand. If you do a lot of
stuff using higher order functions, a type system is a very useful
tool for getting things right. Compared to typical Haskell code,
the use of higher order functions in CL is usually fairly "shallow".
Things like map or apply that are conceptually simple.
If you take a look at the current functional programming landscape,
you would be hard pressed to find many languages that do not have
static typing.
Scheme?
Pascal
--
1st European Lisp Symposium (ELS'08)
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~pcostanza/els08/
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- References:
- Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Pertti Kellomäki
- Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Pertti Kellomäki
- Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- From: Pertti Kellomäki
- Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- From: Slobodan Blazeski
- Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- From: Pertti Kellomäki
- Lisper's first look at Haskell
- Prev by Date: Re: Lisper's first look at Haskell
- Next by Date: Re: Improved MATLISP
- Previous by thread: Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- Next by thread: Re: Does purely functional way requires static typing?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|