3 ms·
Actually, I'm wondering what Haskell has to do with any of this at all. You're comparing the size of the current incarnation of a fairly modern functional prog
by stuhacking 15y ago
Actually, I'm wondering what Haskell has to do with any of this at all.
You're comparing the size of the current incarnation of a fairly modern functional programming runtime with the capacity of computers that existed 10 years before the first incarnation was realised...
The only message I can take from that is that programs today are quite big. That's only really interesting from a nostalgic point of view, I don't see what relevance it has to the discussion of mutability?
Of course, I could have missed something obviously significant here...
- stewbrew 15y agoThe parent poster was talking about immutability, "the early days" and copying data. I think my point was that you don't have to copy data all the time but this requires a clever interpreter/compiler that you could not have run "in the early days". I'd also like to use the opportunity to say that I find those OOP vs FP posts at HN rather pointless.