Re: [Haskell-beginners] Doubts about functional programming paradigm

Much better said. :) Put my foot in my mouth. I was vaguely accusative where I intended to allude to comprehension. There are certain basic connections that had not really ever gelled prior to reading some of your posts. For example, that function application itself is obviously a fixed point had me slapping my forehead. Much taken for granted in my day to day work. Cheers, Darren On Dec 22, 2015 4:49 AM, "Rustom Mody" wrote:

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant wrote:

...

On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody" wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs wrote:

...

Mr. McIlroy,

FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It sounds like an amazing experience.

No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened

About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors of SICP!)

http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html

Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more

profound than I would have expected.

Not sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for function application. Neither does Haskell. Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application. Scheme pronounces it 'apply'. Haskell pronounces it '$'

This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:

Close because if we have foo x = 2*x

we can write

Prelude> foo $ (2+5) 14

or

Prelude> foo (2+5) 14

Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized' to

foo$x = 2*x

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners