3 ms·

> 1. I don't believe in good or bad ... Then take my "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "more" and "less" appealing/convenient. > 3. The semantics of Eve is es

by tome 9y ago

> 1. I don't believe in good or bad ... Then take my "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "more" and "less" appealing/convenient. > 3. The semantics of Eve is essentially that of Dedalus If expanded on that as much as you have expanded on the semantics of Haskell in this thread then we might actually learn something very interesting!

pron 9y ago
> Then take my "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "more" and "less" appealing/convenient. So why are you upset when I say that I don't find pure FP to be appealing or convenient for concurrent/interactive/distributed programs? I think that the very notion of representing computation as functions in such circumstances is ill-advised, and results in a very inconvenient, very unnatural (at least for me), and very hard-to-reason-about formalism compare to alternatives. Nevertheless, my opinion is subjective, and I can accept that some may not share it. > If expanded on that as much as you have expanded on the semantics of Haskell in this thread then we might actually learn something very interesting! I did. Read my blog post (which is the general theory), and then read the Dedalus paper. Some time ago you asked me to write something about TLA(+). I have, my posts (especially parts 3 and 4) are aimed precisely to get people away from what Lamport calls the "Whorfian syndrome", which is confusing the analysis of a particular formalism with that of computation or programs in general. In addition, I strongly recommend reading the overview paper, Binary Relations for Abstraction and Refinement [1] by David A Schmidt (who also wrote the book Denotational Semantics: A Methodology for Language Development). While the last section of that paper discusses temporal logic, the paper really applies to all programs in all programming languages. [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.16.4564&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.16....
- tome 9y ago
  > So why are you upset when I say that I don't find pure FP to be appealing or convenient for concurrent/interactive/distributed programs? I'm not sure "upset" is the right word but what I object to is your repeated mischaracterisations and misunderstandings of Haskell, especially of how it is used by industry programmers.
  - pron 9y ago
    What are you talking about? And I object to false claims that pure FP is somehow "better designed" than other approaches (which is how this entire discussion started). Design is a matter of aesthetics (completely subjective) and pragmatics (also subjective, but can be measured empirically) -- not theory -- and aesthetics and pragmatics are the sources of value -- again, not theory.

by tome 9y ago

pron 9y ago

> Then take my "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "more" and "less" appealing/convenient. So why are you upset when I say that I don't find pure FP to be appealing or convenient for concurrent/interactive/distributed programs? I think that the very notion of representing computation as functions in such circumstances is ill-advised, and results in a very inconvenient, very unnatural (at least for me), and very hard-to-reason-about formalism compare to alternatives. Nevertheless, my opinion is subjective, and I can accept that some may not share it. > If expanded on that as much as you have expanded on the semantics of Haskell in this thread then we might actually learn something very interesting! I did. Read my blog post (which is the general theory), and then read the Dedalus paper. Some time ago you asked me to write something about TLA(+). I have, my posts (especially parts 3 and 4) are aimed precisely to get people away from what Lamport calls the "Whorfian syndrome", which is confusing the analysis of a particular formalism with that of computation or programs in general. In addition, I strongly recommend reading the overview paper, Binary Relations for Abstraction and Refinement [1] by David A Schmidt (who also wrote the book Denotational Semantics: A Methodology for Language Development). While the last section of that paper discusses temporal logic, the paper really applies to all programs in all programming languages. [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.16.4564&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.16....

tome 9y ago
> So why are you upset when I say that I don't find pure FP to be appealing or convenient for concurrent/interactive/distributed programs? I'm not sure "upset" is the right word but what I object to is your repeated mischaracterisations and misunderstandings of Haskell, especially of how it is used by industry programmers.
- pron 9y ago
  What are you talking about? And I object to false claims that pure FP is somehow "better designed" than other approaches (which is how this entire discussion started). Design is a matter of aesthetics (completely subjective) and pragmatics (also subjective, but can be measured empirically) -- not theory -- and aesthetics and pragmatics are the sources of value -- again, not theory.