See bottom post.

Am 28.05.2013 21:06, schrieb Anthony Tavener:
> I don't have this "computer science". :) You don't need it for functional
> programming. I was trying to program "functionally" in C, 20 years ago (after asm),
> but I didn't know there was a whole programming paradigm supporting what I kept
> wanting to do. (I favored recursion, use of ternary conditional, wanted closures
> but didn't know what that was, avoided mutable state...)
>
> However when I started learning OCaml (my first FP language), it was still a steep
> learning curve. I needed to develop enough familiarity with the idioms to use them
> with less mental friction. That takes time. I think imperative techniques can be
> easier to grasp, much like a GUI is easier at first, but it doesn't scale as well
> -- if you stick with the GUI you limit yourself. You don't need compsci, but I
> think there's more time to gain familiarity -- though in my case it might have been
> more unlearning that took the time.
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Mr. Herr <misterherr@freenet.de
> <mailto:misterherr@freenet.de>> wrote:
>
>
>     Am 28.05.2013 03:17, schrieb Francois Berenger:
>     > On 05/27/2013 09:38 PM, Mr. Herr wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Am 27.05.2013 10 <tel:27.05.2013%2010>:53, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
>     >>> Mr. Herr wrote:
>     >>>> I think the biggest problem is you generally can only learn FP and/or Ocaml at
>     >>>> university, because:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> The FP terminology is at first (and a long time after starting learning it),
>     >>>> without
>     >>>> a teacher, not understandable.
>     >>> Sorry, that's simply not true.
>     >>>
>     >>> I studied my last univeristy course in 1992. I picked up Ocaml in 2004
>     >>> and Haskell in 2008. Before Ocaml, the only functional language I had
>     >>> used was scheme in the late 1980s.
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >> Scheme is terribly functional, so to say, and is absolutely immerged in the
>     Lispy
>     >> slang.
>     >> All your knowlegde in C, Java, PHP, Assembler, Tcl/Tk, Pascal ... will not
>     help you
>     >> there.
>     >>
>     >> I started as an IBM /370 Systems Admin in the late nineties, and it took me
>     months of
>     >> reading in 2012
>     >> to get some understanding about what the heck the scheme people are talking
>     about.
>     >>
>     >> Scheme is even a better example for the problems non university learners
>     encounter,
>     >> than Ocaml, IMO.
>     >
>     > A very good book on scheme (which is also quite a deep introduction to computer
>     > science if you read the whole thing in fact):
>     >
>     > "structure and interpretation of computer programs"
>     >
>     > http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
>     >
>
>     Yes, a good book. The author takes care to only use terms and features he explained
>     before. I started working through it, then I thought there must be an easier way to
>     write some system admin scripts like checking if IPv6 is functional, ssh-agent has
>     identities, ... I will come back to the book.
>
>     I find for myself Ocaml is indeed easier to start with than Scheme for a FP
>     beginner.
>
>     But this is the point: do we need computer science to start with functional
>     programming?
>
>     Before someone answers "computer science will be good for you" - other programming
>     languages do not have this requirement.
>
>     /Str.
>
Ah, at least one person knows what I am talking about.

Indeed, I also see Ocaml as a good stepping stone into functional programming, with
pattern matching as extra goodie.

We should make it more popular, without requiring a course in computer science. Hmm -
how did this thread start ...

/Str.