Re: [Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

1 Oct 2009


      2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin :
...
Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
...
2009/10/1 Andrew Coppin :
...
Sure. But what is a computer program? It's a *list of instructions* that
tells a computer *how to do something*. And yet, the Haskell definition
of
sum looks more like a definition of what a sum is rather than an actual,
usable procedure for *computing* that sum. (Of course, we know that it
/is/
in fact executable... it just doesn't look it at first sight.)
Well, we are not writing computer programs directly, even in C, that's
what compilers are for.
That's why I find arguments about the sequential essence of computer
programs to be weak.
It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is fundamentally
sequential; parallel computers have been around for a little while now...
I don't buy this argument, either; human thinking is far too broad a
concept to say that it is simply "sequential". If it were sequential,
it could barely express non-sequential concepts, and natural languages
would have rather few of them, which we all know is false.
...
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- 
Eugene Kirpichov
Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru