Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #105584 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-08 10:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-13 06:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 10:04 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-08 18:20 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 11:12 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 11:36 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-08 20:43 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-08 21:55 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 13:18 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 12:44 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 13:03 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 11:33 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-08 20:46 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 13:25 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 13:55 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-10 11:09 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:51 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-10 19:19 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:53 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 14:17 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 06:55 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 07:05 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-08 13:55 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-08 23:41 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-09 05:03 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-09 14:06 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-09 14:20 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-09 08:07 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-09 21:50 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 23:38 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-09 22:46 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:39 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-10 08:03 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:22 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-10 19:24 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 23:23 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-11 18:02 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-09 20:48 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:57 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-10 11:26 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 17:53 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-10 13:17 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-11 17:11 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-10 00:38 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 10:23 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-10 11:37 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-10 09:07 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-10 13:22 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-10 10:47 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-10 14:57 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-10 12:26 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 12:49 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 23:32 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-11 12:26 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-11 17:17 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 10:26 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-11 19:48 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 12:02 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 09:14 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-11 15:44 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 09:51 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-11 16:11 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 22:21 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 13:36 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 23:48 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:55 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-11 18:34 -0500
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 15:23 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 11:42 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 13:49 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 10:56 -0700
Re: lambda functions in C jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 15:30 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-12 00:37 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-11 17:23 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 14:32 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 07:22 +0000
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:10 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-12 11:08 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:17 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 14:14 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-12 09:54 -0400
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 15:10 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-12 08:08 -0700
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:49 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-12 14:28 -0400
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 00:03 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-12 19:15 -0400
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 18:18 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-12 10:42 -0700
Re: lambda functions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 20:53 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-10 07:09 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-10 08:56 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:49 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 04:12 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2017-03-09 10:38 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 08:48 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-09 09:45 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 09:51 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 09:50 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-09 11:08 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:22 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-09 12:12 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 11:29 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 13:33 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:42 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:02 +1300
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 14:30 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 15:07 -0800
Re: lambda functions in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 21:45 +0100
Re: lambda functions in C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 06:13 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oa17f7$akf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105728 |
On 10/03/17 17:53, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:26:03 -0500 > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> And LISP would rather consider you a failure from the academic field >> which wouldn't admit it as is. >> >> Just because YOU don't consider it a success doesn't mean others don't. > > You're pathetic! Insults won't change the reality... > That's no insult - if there is one thing that Jerry can do well, it is insult people :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 00:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ccb5bf56-87ff-41c6-b9df-ca4cad830029@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105705 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 1:48:40 AM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 3/9/2017 5:38 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > > >> > Thus he's right, LISP isn't very successful in the real world. > > > > LISP still has it's place, and is still used in some circles. > additionally, it provides the basic concepts for many languages. And I > would consider a language that is still used after almost 60 years to be > quite successful. How many other languages can you say have done that? > If we're sufficiently familiar with a language to be able to talk about it, it can't have been a complete and utter failure, like many languages which never evolve beyond one man projects. But it's famous largely because it was one of the first. It works on a completely different design principle to the imperative languages. Scheme, an update Lisp heavily pushed at MIT, didn't work out either, it was reluctantly decided to abandon it in undergrad courses in favour of Python. And when I was looking into the possibility of a book contract, one of the pieces of advice was "books on Lisp don't sell".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170310102321.81020459d73c401e00166b13@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #105715 |
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:38:08 -0800 (PST) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > If we're sufficiently familiar with a language to be able to talk > about it, it can't have been a complete and utter failure, like > many languages which never evolve beyond one man projects. But it's > famous largely because it was one of the first. > > It works on a completely different design principle to the imperative > languages. Scheme, an update Lisp heavily pushed at MIT, didn't work > out either, it was reluctantly decided to abandon it in undergrad > courses in favour of Python. And when I was looking into the possibility > of a book contract, one of the pieces of advice was "books on Lisp > don't sell". Indeed. Theory with proof is science but without it is religion or politic. LISP proved to be inefficient for a long time in the software industry. Academic gurus tried to reverse the steam by religiously promoting LISP but they failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 11:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9ukji$3l1$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105715 |
On 3/10/2017 3:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 1:48:40 AM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 3/9/2017 5:38 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: >> >>>>> Thus he's right, LISP isn't very successful in the real world. >>> >> >> LISP still has it's place, and is still used in some circles. >> additionally, it provides the basic concepts for many languages. And I >> would consider a language that is still used after almost 60 years to be >> quite successful. How many other languages can you say have done that? >> > If we're sufficiently familiar with a language to be able to talk > about it, it can't have been a complete and utter failure, like > many languages which never evolve beyond one man projects. But it's > famous largely because it was one of the first. > > It works on a completely different design principle to the imperative > languages. Scheme, an update Lisp heavily pushed at MIT, didn't work > out either, it was reluctantly decided to abandon it in undergrad > courses in favour of Python. And when I was looking into the possibility > of a book contract, one of the pieces of advice was "books on Lisp > don't sell". > It's more than "one of the first". It was used quite a bit in the 60's and early 70's, and as I said, is still used in some circles - quite heavily, I might add. And while I don't do LISP myself, I've had clients who have had a significant investment in LISP. There are still a number of interpreters/compilers out there for LISP. Even the GNU project had one (although I don't know if it's been kept up). As for LISP books not selling... there seem to be a number of them for sale on Amazon, some pretty new. I wouldn't expect that from a "book that doesn't sell". But I also admit they aren't going to have nearly the audience that books on C have. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 09:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7557f1e3-ba5e-4aa9-b0bd-9073e58c7844@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105727 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 3/10/2017 3:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > As for LISP books not selling... there seem to be a number of them for > sale on Amazon, some pretty new. I wouldn't expect that from a "book > that doesn't sell". But I also admit they aren't going to have nearly > the audience that books on C have. > The situation may have changed, as there's renewed interest in functional programming. It's the latest fad. Like most fads, there's something going for it, but the downsides aren't pointed out in the emergent phase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9uqn5$q92$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105730 |
On 3/10/2017 12:07 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 3/10/2017 3:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> As for LISP books not selling... there seem to be a number of them for >> sale on Amazon, some pretty new. I wouldn't expect that from a "book >> that doesn't sell". But I also admit they aren't going to have nearly >> the audience that books on C have. >> > The situation may have changed, as there's renewed interest in functional > programming. It's the latest fad. Like most fads, there's something going for > it, but the downsides aren't pointed out in the emergent phase. > Well, functional programming has its place - and it's much more than "the latest fad". It's been commonly used for 60 years or more; I can't think of a single fad which has lasted that long. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8f5734c1-b95e-40ea-8cf3-c0c741b82d00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105732 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:22:15 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 3/10/2017 12:07 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 3/10/2017 3:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> > >> As for LISP books not selling... there seem to be a number of them for > >> sale on Amazon, some pretty new. I wouldn't expect that from a "book > >> that doesn't sell". But I also admit they aren't going to have nearly > >> the audience that books on C have. > >> > > The situation may have changed, as there's renewed interest in functional > > programming. It's the latest fad. Like most fads, there's something going for > > it, but the downsides aren't pointed out in the emergent phase. > > > > Well, functional programming has its place - and it's much more than > "the latest fad". It's been commonly used for 60 years or more; I can't > think of a single fad which has lasted that long. > That's to misunderstand fads. The subject of the fad is rarely an innovation, in fact in a sense if something is an innovation that excludes it from being a "fad", it might be a "craze" that will die out shortly, but it's hard to be sure. Fads are when something that existed previously but no-one paid much attention to suddenly come into fashion. Like quinola - it's been possible to buy it for years and as a biochemist, it's a standard example of a grain which contains both nitrogenous and sulphurous proteins. But nowadays it's on every supermarket shelf. It doesn't offer anything that beans on toast can't provide as well, so eventually people are going to get bored of it an move on to the next thing. Mobile phones are a craze rather than a fad, however. Clearly social rules and other restrictions will have to be brought in to keep the things under control. And of course I never carry one myself. But they are genuinely new, they are a genuine long-term transformation of people's daily lives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 14:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9v0ag$ds6$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105733 |
On 3/10/2017 1:47 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:22:15 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 3/10/2017 12:07 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 3/10/2017 3:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>> As for LISP books not selling... there seem to be a number of them for >>>> sale on Amazon, some pretty new. I wouldn't expect that from a "book >>>> that doesn't sell". But I also admit they aren't going to have nearly >>>> the audience that books on C have. >>>> >>> The situation may have changed, as there's renewed interest in functional >>> programming. It's the latest fad. Like most fads, there's something going for >>> it, but the downsides aren't pointed out in the emergent phase. >>> >> >> Well, functional programming has its place - and it's much more than >> "the latest fad". It's been commonly used for 60 years or more; I can't >> think of a single fad which has lasted that long. >> > That's to misunderstand fads. > The subject of the fad is rarely an innovation, in fact in a sense > if something is an innovation that excludes it from being a "fad", > it might be a "craze" that will die out shortly, but it's hard to > be sure. > Fads are when something that existed previously but no-one paid > much attention to suddenly come into fashion. Like quinola - it's > been possible to buy it for years and as a biochemist, it's a standard > example of a grain which contains both nitrogenous and sulphurous > proteins. But nowadays it's on every supermarket shelf. It doesn't > offer anything that beans on toast can't provide as well, so eventually > people are going to get bored of it an move on to the next thing. > > Mobile phones are a craze rather than a fad, however. Clearly social > rules and other restrictions will have to be brought in to keep > the things under control. And of course I never carry one myself. > But they are genuinely new, they are a genuine long-term transformation > of people's daily lives. > That may be YOUR definition of a fad, but not the generally accepted one. For instance, I remember Hula Hoops being a "fad". The same with "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. And lots of other things. And something which has been continually used for 60 years plus or minus has not "suddenly come into fashion". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 12:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <362dae7c-352a-45e6-9823-53167c45a317@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105744 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:57:54 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 3/10/2017 1:47 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > That may be YOUR definition of a fad, but not the generally accepted > one. For instance, I remember Hula Hoops being a "fad". The same with > "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. And lots of other things. > > And something which has been continually used for 60 years plus or minus > has not "suddenly come into fashion". > An example of a fad was "make your own adventure" books. I borrowed one of those from the public library when I was quite young. It had no real plot, but each page gave you options, and you turned to the page of choice. Not many people had heard of the title, it was just buried away somewhere in the public library, it attracted little attention. Then a few years later Ian Livingstone issued "The Warlock of Firetop Mountain" using exactly the same technique. I'd been a roleplayer for a couple of years at the time, and I was bang in the target audience. it became a bestseller. Not because Livingstone invented anything new, and it wasn't even particularly well done as a fantasy. But he got the market timing right, he rode Gary Gygax's coattails (Gary Gygax was co-inventor and chief publiciser of Dungeons and Dragons). Similarly, the people now advocating functional programming are not really offering anything new. They've taken down something that has been on the shelf, not attracting much attention, and dusted it off. Why now? Partly because object-oriented programming has run its course, no-one now believes that it solves the important problem in software design. Partly because the move to the web means that C won't run, so there's room for a new language that will run in web browsers and interface to databases.Partly because computers are now fast and big enough - the inefficiency of Lisp-style lists is not now a real concern. There might be other reasons I haven't thought of. All the conditions come together, and the fad is now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ee21016-61b0-4090-8d9c-854543877ce7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105750 |
I don't mean to defend fat girl Jerry, but there is one really large, and really popular tech firm that used to use functional programming on part of the user interface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170310233230.f487a2e205a480571768250c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #105758 |
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:49:59 -0800 (PST) Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't mean to defend fat girl Jerry, but there is one really large, and really popular tech firm that used to use functional programming on part of the user interface. Popular doesn't mean good. Hitler was popular at his time... Staline too, Putin and Trump are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oa1bqf$kgr$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105770 |
On 3/10/2017 5:32 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:49:59 -0800 (PST) > Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't mean to defend fat girl Jerry, but there is one really large, and really popular tech firm that used to use functional programming on part of the user interface. > > Popular doesn't mean good. Hitler was popular at his time... Staline too, Putin > and Trump are. > And just because YOU say something isn't good doesn't mean it isn't. What makes you the expert on LISP, anyway? And your invocation of Godwin's Law shows you have lost the argument. How pathetic. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oa17pu$dkl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105750 |
On 10/03/17 21:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:57:54 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 3/10/2017 1:47 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> That may be YOUR definition of a fad, but not the generally >> accepted one. For instance, I remember Hula Hoops being a "fad". >> The same with "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. And lots of other things. >> >> And something which has been continually used for 60 years plus or >> minus has not "suddenly come into fashion". >> > > Similarly, the people now advocating functional programming are not > really offering anything new. They've taken down something that has > been on the shelf, not attracting much attention, and dusted it off. > Why now? Partly because object-oriented programming has run its > course, no-one now believes that it solves the important problem in > software design. Partly because the move to the web means that C > won't run, so there's room for a new language that will run in web > browsers and interface to databases.Partly because computers are now > fast and big enough - the inefficiency of Lisp-style lists is not now > a real concern. There might be other reasons I haven't thought of. > All the conditions come together, and the fad is now. > I have to ask - to what are you referring as "/the/ important problem in software design" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <383737e2-fcfc-47c1-acff-7f12fc234b46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105795 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:17:51 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > On 10/03/17 21:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > I have to ask - to what are you referring as "/the/ important problem in > software design" ? > The important problem is how to achieve behaviour (which we know computers are capable of), to time and in a form which is usable by our clients / customers / fans. The other important problem is to determine what computers are capable of, there it's possible Lisp makes a contribution, but it doesn't solve that problem either. Object-orientation doesn't pretend to try to help with that problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 19:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oa1gkv$4cc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105803 |
On 11/03/17 19:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:17:51 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> On 10/03/17 21:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> I have to ask - to what are you referring as "/the/ important problem in >> software design" ? >> > The important problem is how to achieve behaviour (which we know computers > are capable of), to time and in a form which is usable by our clients / > customers / fans. Ah, so the single major problem in software design today is how to do good software design? Your claim is a bit like telling us that "Bicycles are getting really popular now. Why now? Because cars have run their course - no one now believes they solve the important problem in transportation." The important problem in transportation being transporting things. I think it's fair to say that few people think that object oriented programming is a magic wand that makes all programming better - but the people that used to think seldom understood much about programming. OOP is just another tool in the toolbox - it's a useful one in many circumstances, and certainly not one that will be retired any time soon, but it is not the only tool. > > The other important problem is to determine what computers are capable > of, there it's possible Lisp makes a contribution, but it doesn't > solve that problem either. Object-orientation doesn't pretend to try > to help with that problem. > If you are talking about theory, then no real programming language is involved - it's a mathematical problem, mainly of mathematical interest. If you are talking about practice, then Lisp, OOP languages, and a vast array of other languages and computation models are used to see what can be done with computers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdaa2ede-9861-4000-885f-f7c910ae5a92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105808 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 6:48:47 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > On 11/03/17 19:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:17:51 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > >> On 10/03/17 21:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> > >> I have to ask - to what are you referring as "/the/ important > >> problem in software design" ? > >> > >> The important problem is how to achieve behaviour (which we know > >> computers are capable of), to time and in a form which is usable > >> by our clients / customers / fans. > > Ah, so the single major problem in software design today is how to do > good software design? > > Your claim is a bit like telling us that "Bicycles are getting really > popular now. Why now? Because cars have run their course - no one now > believes they solve the important problem in transportation." The > important problem in transportation being transporting things. > Yes,, but it's true enough to say that bicycles are getting really popular now, because cars have run their course - congestion, pollution, danger to pedestrians. If cars also failed to transport things from A to B reliably, then that would be another, far more powerful reason for saying they've run their course. But it's simply not true - it's very rare for someone to set off from A in a car and not get to B at## all. Very common for him to be be delayed by jams, but only rare to actually fail to make the destination. However C++ software projects very frequently do fail. You don't get a workable product before time and money run out. Of course projects built with C can also fail, but it's not at all clear that the "++" in C++ actually indicates that the success rate is greater. > > I think it's fair to say that few people think that object oriented > programming is a magic wand that makes all programming better - but the > people that used to think seldom understood much about programming. OOP > is just another tool in the toolbox - it's a useful one in many > circumstances, and certainly not one that will be retired any time soon, > but it is not the only tool. > I agree with you there. My rough estimate is that about 20% of projects ( by which I mean the sort of projects I get involved with) should be done with object-oriented design as the major paradigm. 3D studio max is an example I often use, though it's ages since I worked with it. The OO was good because there was a natural mapping from C++ object to the virtual 3D objects the designers manipulated. However that's less true of other programs. > > > The other important problem is to determine what computers are capable > > of, there it's possible Lisp makes a contribution, but it doesn't > > solve that problem either. Object-orientation doesn't pretend to try > > to help with that problem. > > > > If you are talking about theory, then no real programming language is > involved - it's a mathematical problem, mainly of mathematical interest. > > If you are talking about practice, then Lisp, OOP languages, and a vast > array of other languages and computation models are used to see what can > be done with computers. > Mainly of linguistic interest, I'd say. There are things which are mathematically impossible to compute, but what people generally want is a robot like R2D2 which understands instructions given to it, even if it only answers back in bleeps. Needless to say, R2D2 was a man dressed up (a far better actor than C3PO, who looked like a man dressed up).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 09:14 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eij460Fhe2lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105815 |
On 03/12/17 09:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > However C++ software projects very frequently do fail. You don't get > a workable product before time and money run out. Of course projects > built with C can also fail, but it's not at all clear that the "++" > in C++ actually indicates that the success rate is greater. Projects fail due to broken process, not the language used. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 15:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fec1dffe-19a8-3b9e-9bba-d4819ba8359d@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #105817 |
On 03/11/2017 03:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 03/12/17 09:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> However C++ software projects very frequently do fail. You don't get >> a workable product before time and money run out. Of course projects >> built with C can also fail, but it's not at all clear that the "++" >> in C++ actually indicates that the success rate is greater. > > Projects fail due to broken process, not the language used. Many projects do fail due to broken process, but it's a mistake to claim that's the only way they can fail. Among many other possibilities, they can also fail due to making a bad choice of implementation languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 09:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eij6aoFhe2lU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105821 |
On 03/12/17 09:44 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 03/11/2017 03:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 03/12/17 09:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>> However C++ software projects very frequently do fail. You don't get >>> a workable product before time and money run out. Of course projects >>> built with C can also fail, but it's not at all clear that the "++" >>> in C++ actually indicates that the success rate is greater. >> >> Projects fail due to broken process, not the language used. > > Many projects do fail due to broken process, but it's a mistake to claim > that's the only way they can fail. Among many other possibilities, they > can also fail due to making a bad choice of implementation languages. Where that is the case, the process for choosing the implementation language is broken :) -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 16:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cfaad2ac-c085-b701-da29-13a3d5c3a9db@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #105825 |
On 03/11/2017 03:51 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 03/12/17 09:44 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 03/11/2017 03:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 03/12/17 09:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>> However C++ software projects very frequently do fail. You don't get >>>> a workable product before time and money run out. Of course projects >>>> built with C can also fail, but it's not at all clear that the "++" >>>> in C++ actually indicates that the success rate is greater. >>> >>> Projects fail due to broken process, not the language used. >> >> Many projects do fail due to broken process, but it's a mistake to claim >> that's the only way they can fail. Among many other possibilities, they >> can also fail due to making a bad choice of implementation languages. > > Where that is the case, the process for choosing the implementation > language is broken :) If you're going to approach the issue that way, your claim that "projects fail due to broken process" is no justification for rejecting his claim. His claim becomes equivalent to "Projects often fail due to use of a broken process that causes them to choose C++, when they shouldn't have". Note that I am not agreeing with Malcolm, merely pointing out that your response is in the wrong form to count as a proper rebuttal. My own personal real-world experience with C++ is too limited to justify making any generalizations, but what little C++ code I've had to work with so far suffers from design that makes it difficult to determine where to look for the code that implements a particular feature of the program. I don't know whether to blame that on the language, or the designers, or the inherent complexity of the tasks the programs need to do - but it certainly doesn't give me examples to counter Malcolm's claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web