![]() My exposure to PL was very much steeped in type theory though, no doubt due to the presence of various luminaries in the field in my colleage (CMU). Needless to say I kind of fell in love with functional programming the way most programming language (GL) geeks do and took a bunch of courses in the PL area. ![]() It felt very much like I had been enlightened in some sense, because I don't think I've seen coding in the same light from that point onwards. At first, writing ML was a very painful experience, but midway through the course, a bunch of us suddenly began to "see" how it was supposed to be done. I've not had the chance to learn Haskell yet, but for my undergrad "principles of programming" class we did Standard ML. Posted by sophist at 12:07 PM on October 18, 2008 ![]() The common open source compiler written by the the designer of the language is called the GHC. In Haskell it seems that the compiler itself is written in Haskell and the runtime is written in C and C-, with something similar called bootstrapping. Stickåarpet: It is common or functional languages to evaluate themselves, see the metacircular evaluator. It's because they are a pain in the ass and frankly I would rather tell the computer what to do than "what stuff is" when I want to get something done. There is a clear reason why these languages have remained in academia as research projects and been consistently rejected by commercial developers. I didn't say it wasn't powerful, because it was, but given the choice I would rather use something else. Although I had significant programming experience prior to that, and it did not deter me from continuing afterward, I just found almost everything about the language awkward, unfriendly, and non-intuitive. I had much the same experience as spiderwire with Lisp/Scheme, another functional programming language, in an intro CS class. In purely functional programming you don't tell the computer what to do as such but rather you tell it what stuff is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |