arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/λ/ - programming

structure and interpretation of computer programs.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment

formatting options

File
Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit. https://archive.arisuchan.jp/q/res/2703.html#2703

Kalyx ######


File: 1506617977809.bmp (808.06 KB, 525x525, mccarthy_glitch4.bmp)

 No.749

Welcome all, to the /lambda/ FP general! This thread serves as both a discussion of more abstract concepts of Functional design as well as a place to discuss/collaborate/bitch about specific FP languages and projects.

In brief,

In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm—a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs—that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids changing-state and mutable data.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bwg2rog (Wiki article on FP)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6eyfn9 (SICP - an absolute must-read for anyone looking at FP)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yby2qmuj (Excellent writeup on what makes FP awesome)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jfnqwez (Learn FP from the creator of Scala, free!)

>>>/λ/737 (Scala thread with resources)

 No.751

Is SICP really an absolute must read? Surely people can learn some practical FP without it.

 No.752

>>751
It's more of an absolute must-read for anyone getting into Scheme or any Lisp in general. FP? Not so much.

 No.753

>>752
>>751
It's a must read for everyone who wants to program.

 No.754

>>751
>>752
>>753
It's a Must Read for anyone who wants to read SICP

 No.755

What do you guys think about joy as a functional language ?

Being stack based it seems easier to reason about and passing around data is easier because it can just be left on the stack, you don't need to use functions to modify your functions to accept more arguments.

 No.756

>>755
I think being stack based makes it easier to draw out and reason about, but harder to reason about when looking at just the code.

 No.770

Since this is a general I guess it's okay to ask here: does anyone here know of a good resource about Ocaml's modules and maybe something on how to translate between SML and Ocaml modules?

 No.1400

Is there a german translation of sicp.

 No.1413

>>1400
Yes, Struktur und Interpretation von Computerprogrammen. Although I can't find it online.

 No.1414

>>1413
Scratch that, it's actually one libgen. But it's too big to post here.

 No.1420

For some of the more interesting resources on type level programming theres:
https://bentnib.org/quantitative-type-theory.html
https://www.tweag.io/posts/2017-08-24-linear-types-packed-data.html
https://github.com/bor0/gidti
https://plfa.github.io/

And interesting functional programming in general:
https://elvishjerricco.github.io/2017/03/10/profunctors-arrows-and-static-analysis.html
https://github.com/quchen/articles/blob/master/2018-11-22_zipWith_const.md
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ey204/teaching/ACS/R202/papers/S5_Stream_Query/papers/mainland_icfp_2008.pdf
http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/workshop-02.pdf


>>751
It's not really needed at all for FP and one would probably be better off with a Haskell book (since they tend to be easier) or one of the many on ((O)ca)ML.

>>755
It's effectively point-free-or-die style which tends to be rather difficult to parse without type signatures.

 No.1505

Is Ocaml worth for scientific programming? I need to manipulate texts of ~50000 words, wrote on Fortran (gfortran) and I was shocked seeing that it's slower than the same code on Perl (10'' vs <1') and I'm willing to try some FP.
And what about SML with MLton? What's faster for number crunching and text arrays?

 No.1506

algorithms tell you what to do
calculus tells you what you're allowed to do
woo-hoo!

 No.1507

>>1505
I have this book on the topic although I don't know if anyone actually uses OCaml for this kind of work.

 No.1508

>>1507
I wanted to post the book but Arisuchan swallowed it :(
So here's OCaml for Scientists: https://layer01.club/WAlX.pdf

 No.1509

>>1508
Thanks!



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]