From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C335BCAE for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6I9T3dr029489 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:29:03 +0200 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so1241309rng for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:29:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=LPLOESxvWK54xFsWKvqbP0H30AUdttvFyskckd3Dfbu4lAnibgZ0qYhoH5YWsYca1wnekGxDIzWpeXv+P88NeycllKJkXuvYy/d3kRvjY3jxL6xwLRH3a7NP90wajsOnvau9snAln5Z7Uvk5XKXZbsu9mImIOBu6B9s1XCNEW0Y= Received: by 10.38.12.74 with SMTP id 74mr1657714rnl; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.24.74 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18d1a1e50507180229638dc079@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:29:02 +0200 From: Mark Meyers Reply-To: Mark Meyers To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design? In-Reply-To: <42DB6161.4030507@cs.utah.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6241_30346988.1121678942994" References: <9cc3782b05071411004b27b6a4@mail.gmail.com> <42DB6161.4030507@cs.utah.edu> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42DB765F.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 soapbox:01 morelli:01 morelli:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 beginner's:01 beginners:01 bug:01 soapbox:01 beginner's:01 beginners:01 bug:01 ...:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: ------=_Part_6241_30346988.1121678942994 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This sounds like something I heard someone say about ten years ago standing= =20 on a soapbox... Only he was shouting about object oriented programming at= =20 the time.=20 On 7/18/05, Robert Morelli wrote:=20 >=20 > I've been lurking on this list for several years. This seems as good a > time as any to delurk and jump on a soap box. >=20 > I think you've put your finger on one of the main reasons functional > languages have failed to attract significant use beyond a few niche > areas. >=20 > I contend: > 1. The FP community tends to emphasize low level issues rather than > the larger scale issues that concern most programmers. It is also > inept at practical documentation and advocacy. > 2. There isn't much of a theory of large scale functional design. > At least, there is no consensus. > 3. Point 2. is not the consequence of point 1.; it's not simply a > matter of communication, but an instrinsic void in the FP paradigm. > The FP paradigm is intrinsically poorly adapted to the kind of large > scale design concepts that concern most programmers. Object oriented > programming is a much better match, not because of a conspiracy of > commercial giants in the software tool business, but because of > intrinsic technical reasons. Functional programming is a niche > technology ideally suited to simple domains like language tools and > formal methods. It does not have much to say about complicated > systems. >=20 >=20 > Kyle Consalus wrote: > > There are a wealth of resources related to object oriented design=20 > techniques > > (which can certainly be applied to OCaml), but I've been pretty much=20 > unable > > to find any good resources on large scale design of functional programs= . > > I realize that this is the sort of thing that develops over time with > > experience. > > Just the same, there is (most likely) a lot to learn and consider, and = a > > resource would be helpful. My recent uses of OCaml for fairly small=20 > projects > > have been effective, but a lot of things were cumbersome in the design > > and I suspect that I may be thinking about it wrong. > > So, could anyone suggest a good resource or perhaps weigh > > in on their thoughts on the topic? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kyle >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > ------=_Part_6241_30346988.1121678942994 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This sounds like something I heard someone say about ten years ago standing= on a soapbox... Only he was shouting about object oriented programming at = the time.

On 7/18/05, = Robert Morelli <morelli@cs.ut= ah.edu> wrote:
I've been lurking on this list f= or several years.  This seems as good a
time as any to delurk = and jump on a soap box.

I think you've put your finger on one of the main reasons functiona= l
languages have failed to attract significant use beyond a few nicheareas.

I contend:
  1.  The FP community ten= ds to emphasize low level issues rather than
the larger scale issues that concern most programmers.  It is= also
inept at practical documentation and advocacy.
  2.&n= bsp; There isn't much of a theory of large scale functional design.At least,  there is no consensus.
  3.  Point 2. is not the consequence of point 1.;&= nbsp; it's not simply a
matter of communication,  but an = instrinsic void in the FP paradigm.
The FP paradigm is intrinsically poo= rly adapted to the kind of large
scale design concepts that concern most programmers.  Object orie= nted
programming is a much better match,  not because of a con= spiracy of
commercial giants in the software tool business,  b= ut because of
intrinsic technical reasons.  Functional program= ming is a niche
technology ideally suited to simple domains like language tools and
= formal methods.  It does not have much to say about complicatedsystems.


Kyle Consalus wrote:
> There are a wealth of re= sources related to object oriented design techniques
> (which can certainly be applied to OCaml), but I've been pretty mu= ch unable
> to find any good resources on large scale design of funct= ional programs.
> I realize that this is the sort of thing that devel= ops over time with
> experience.
> Just the same, there is (most likely) a lot to= learn and consider, and a
> resource would be helpful. My recent use= s of OCaml for fairly small projects
> have been effective, but a lot= of things were cumbersome in the design
> and I suspect that I may be thinking about it wrong.
> So, c= ould anyone suggest a good resource or perhaps weigh
> in on their th= oughts on the topic?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kyle

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. = Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-l= ist
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr=
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

------=_Part_6241_30346988.1121678942994--