Browse thread
Re: practical functional programming
- Chet Murthy
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2000-11-06 (20:04) |
From: | Chet Murthy <chet@w...> |
Subject: | Re: practical functional programming |
Don't read Okasaki's book. Read the first chapter of Xavier Leroy's thesis. First. I don't mean to be flaming, and certainly, what I say, I'm sure, comes from me, and not from Xavier, so please don't impute to him any of my heat. But there's a place for purity, and a place for impurity. Sometimes, pure code is _more_ complex and difficult-to-understand than impure code. It all depends. And none of the arguments about how pure programs are easier to analyze have ever held up, unless you're talking about "append". Otherwise, well, complex programs solving complex problems are hard to analyze. Period. I've built mission-critical transaction-processing systems in Perl and Java, and I've debugged them in C/C++. I've written _large_ CAML programs, as well as even _larger_ SML programs. There's no difference. Just that in CAML, you can use purity more easily, when yuou want, and often, purity makes for faster programs. No hard and fast rules. Just rules of thumb. Experience. Taste. Discipline. --chet--