From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE>
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] environment idiom
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:48:37 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0412131332290.24994@eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041213.210940.74758065.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > In a certain sense, this "do" notation - which is NOT a special extension
> > of the powers of pure, functional haskell but only a short-hand notation
> > for things that can be spelled out explicitly - is "poison" that allows
> > one to "just hack one's imperative thoughts into haskell without
> > even having know about the abstract point of view".
>
> I wonder whether this is really so.
> Some programs without the do notation would be much harder to read.
> Do you really think they can all be rewritten to cleaner alternative
> code?
Deep in my stomach I have the feeling that precisely this is the case, and
it might well involve some additional syntactic sugar. The problem is
perhaps that the imperative way of coding - which (if we admit it) we all
are at least somewhat used to - blocks our view onto more reasonable ways
to tackle this issue. As one says, a genius is someone who is the first to
do something obvious in the right way, and it will perhaps take a genius
to find the proper way to express IO plan composition in a strikingly
beautiful way which in particular does not suffer from naive imperative
mis-interpretation.
At present, it seems as if there were problems of both types: those where
most of the desired functionality can be easily expressed in a purely
functional way, which is hooked into an otherwise small IO plan, and those
where a large and highly sophisticated IO plan makes use of only very
few and small purely functional helpers. Somehow, this disparity "feels"
quite strange.
These are just a few random thoughts on an issue that is perhaps not yet
sufficiently well understood to reach a final conclusion. Considering that
the monadic point of view only entered the scene quite recently, I hope
that in a few years, we have a much better understanding of all these
things.
--
regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_
Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-13 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-09 2:07 HENRIKSON, JEFFREY
2004-12-09 4:47 ` [Caml-list] " Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-09 6:02 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-09 11:28 ` Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-09 20:02 ` pad
2004-12-09 23:11 ` Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-10 2:30 ` skaller
2004-12-09 9:09 ` Richard Jones
2004-12-09 13:12 ` [Caml-list] " Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2004-12-10 11:59 ` Richard Jones
2004-12-10 10:52 ` [Caml-list] " Andrej Bauer
2004-12-10 12:13 ` Richard Jones
2004-12-10 23:35 ` Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-11 2:30 ` skaller
2004-12-11 14:31 ` Andrej Bauer
2004-12-11 18:13 ` Markus Mottl
2004-12-11 23:56 ` skaller
2004-12-12 2:36 ` William Lovas
2004-12-12 5:33 ` skaller
2004-12-12 19:09 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 0:48 ` skaller
2004-12-13 2:03 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 2:05 ` Michael Walter
[not found] ` <877e9a170412121844b633bb8@mail.gmail.com>
2004-12-13 2:45 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 6:18 ` skaller
2004-12-13 7:08 ` skaller
2004-12-13 9:56 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 12:59 ` skaller
2004-12-13 8:56 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 9:21 ` Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-13 10:05 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 10:29 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 21:16 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 10:20 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 12:09 ` Jacques Garrigue
2004-12-13 12:48 ` Thomas Fischbacher [this message]
2004-12-13 14:09 ` skaller
2004-12-13 21:39 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 13:22 ` skaller
2004-12-13 16:54 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2004-12-13 18:44 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 10:11 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 11:46 ` skaller
2004-12-13 5:41 ` skaller
2004-12-13 9:29 ` Michael Walter
2004-12-13 12:30 ` skaller
2004-12-13 13:49 ` Martin Berger
2004-12-12 23:03 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 1:26 ` skaller
2004-12-13 8:37 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 10:53 ` skaller
2004-12-13 11:38 ` Martin Berger
2004-12-13 13:33 ` skaller
2004-12-13 12:01 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2004-12-13 13:41 ` skaller
2004-12-11 23:29 ` skaller
2004-12-12 0:21 ` Jacques Carette
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0412131332290.24994@eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de \
--to=thomas.fischbacher@physik.uni-muenchen.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox