- The Functional Revolution in C++ - 1 Update
- cmsg cancel <o1imfm$c0a$2@dont-email.me> - 3 Updates
- The strictness and purity of functions of Haskel - 1 Update
- About functional programming and object oriented programming... - 1 Update
| Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Nov 28 09:39PM -0500 Hello, Read this: The Functional Revolution in C++ https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/06/09/the-functional-revolution-in-c/ I don't agree with Bartosz Milewski, because Bartosz has a binary view on this subject, because i think it is not just black and white, because Bartosz Milewski seems to imply that Haskel is the solution and functional programming because of purity of functions of Haskel is the solution for composability, but as i said we have to agree that what consists of a sufficient solution also, Bartosz Milewski is right that the functional language Haskel because its purity of functions avoids side effects and allows composability, but we have to agree on what is a sufficient solution , because i have implied in my previous post that a sufficient solution is also this: because the presence today of transactional memory that avoids deadlock and livelock and race conditions is able to provide us with a tool that solves problems of parallelism , and it allows composability, and this is mandatory and i think it is like sufficient for complex systems, so i don't think that purity of functions of Haskel or functional programming is mandatory, so i think that Object oriented programming will be still our prefered tool in the future. The strictness and purity of functions of Haskel is good for composability and safe-critical systems. But Object oriented programming with transactional memory and with other tools for safe-critical systems is i think a sufficient tool that is good for composability and safe-critical systems. So i don't think that functional programming is mandatory, so i think that object oriented programming is great and will be still here in the future. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Nov 29 02:44AM +0100 |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Nov 29 03:04AM +0100 |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Nov 29 03:39AM +0100 |
| Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Nov 28 09:05PM -0500 Hello.... The strictness and purity of functions of Haskel is good for composability and safe-critical systems. But Object oriented programming with transactional memory and with other tools for safe-critical systems is i think a sufficient tool that is good for composability and safe-critical systems. So i don't think that functional programming is mandatory, so i think that object oriented programming is great and will be still here in the future. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Nov 28 08:45PM -0500 Hello....... About functional programming and object oriented programming... I am coming from a long road of software development.. But when i read on internet about functional programming such us Haskel, they seems to imply that since purity of functions in Haskel avoids side effects and allows composability in the presence of parallelism, so functional programming is not avoidable, but i think that there reasoning is not correct, because the presence today of transactional memory that avoids deadlock and livelock and race conditions is able to provide us with a tool that solves problems of parallelism , and it allows composability, and this is mandatory and i think it is like sufficient for complex systems, so i don't think that purity of functions of Haskel or functional programming is mandatory, so i think that Object oriented programming will be still our prefered tool in the future. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment