6 ms·

I'm very ignorant on the difference between the functional languages, but could someone please explain, apart from the implementation which affect the performan

by niuzeta 13y ago

I'm very ignorant on the difference between the functional languages, but could someone please explain, apart from the implementation which affect the performances, the actual difference between the languages? To me they all look like LISP. I feel like a non-linux user categorizing Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Red Hat, and so on altogether as 'Linux'; While he's not incorrect, there are subtle difference that he's not seeing. It feels rather frustrating. I'm using Racket(when I want to experiment in functional language) because that's what I'm used to, but it would be great to hear X and Y are different in ... than X is better than Y because...

Mikeb85 13y ago
Dunno, ML-based languages have a pretty different feel to Lisp. They're compiled languages, have type inference, heavily rely on pattern matching, type declarations. An example from OCaml's front page: type tree = Leaf of int | Node of tree * tree let rec exists_leaf test tree = match tree with | Leaf v -> test v | Node (left, right) -> exists_leaf test left || exists_leaf test right let has_even_leaf tree = exists_leaf (fun n -> n mod 2 = 0) tree
- zhemao 13y ago
  Most LISP implementations also provide compilers. The difference is that ML variants are statically typed, while LISPs are generally dynamically typed.
  - pmelendez 13y ago
    > "generally dynamically typed" I appreciate the "generally" word here. Racket and Chicken Scheme for instance, both provide statically type extensions.
    - sampo 13y ago
      But not, I assume, type inference? So you'll end up writing the types in the code all the time.
      - pmelendez 13y ago
        Yes... you can have type inference as well (if you wish[1][2]). I guess the philosophy is to use it if you need it but otherwise you might prefer to stick to the dynamic part. ---- [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/quick.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/quick.html [2] http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/more.html#(part._.Type_.Inference) http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/more.html#(part._.Type_...
    - asdasf 13y ago
      But they are essentially garbage are they not? Adding java-style static typing is not helpful at all. The benefits of static typing are very much tied to the power of the type system in question.
      - pmelendez 13y ago
        >"The benefits of static typing are very much tied to the power of the type system in question." One of the main benefits of static typing is to detect errors at compile time which is a benefit of typed Scheme compilers too. BTW, static typing goes way before Java :)
        asdasf 13y ago
        >One of the main benefits of static typing is to detect errors at compile time Obviously. But a static type system that lacks power and expressiveness is very constraining and can detect very few classes of errors. Hence the example of java, a very inexpressive static type system. >BTW, static typing goes way before Java :) Again, obviously. Why are you saying random obvious things to me?
        coldtea 13y ago
        Because they seem to elude you, especially if you think Racket was given an "Java-style static typing".
        asdasf 13y ago
        Your comment is even dumber than I would expect from you. That is a very impressive feat. Non-sequiturs don't become relevant because you say "DURRRR".
      - takikawa 13y ago
        Typed Racket definitely doesn't add a "Java-style static typing" system at all. Its type system is quite specifically designed to accommodate the kinds of programming idioms you find in Racket programs (via occurrence typing, function intersection types, and so on), and comes with local type inference.

by niuzeta 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago

Dunno, ML-based languages have a pretty different feel to Lisp. They're compiled languages, have type inference, heavily rely on pattern matching, type declarations. An example from OCaml's front page: type tree = Leaf of int | Node of tree * tree let rec exists_leaf test tree = match tree with | Leaf v -> test v | Node (left, right) -> exists_leaf test left || exists_leaf test right let has_even_leaf tree = exists_leaf (fun n -> n mod 2 = 0) tree

zhemao 13y ago
Most LISP implementations also provide compilers. The difference is that ML variants are statically typed, while LISPs are generally dynamically typed.
- pmelendez 13y ago
  > "generally dynamically typed" I appreciate the "generally" word here. Racket and Chicken Scheme for instance, both provide statically type extensions.
  - sampo 13y ago
    But not, I assume, type inference? So you'll end up writing the types in the code all the time.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      Yes... you can have type inference as well (if you wish[1][2]). I guess the philosophy is to use it if you need it but otherwise you might prefer to stick to the dynamic part. ---- [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/quick.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/quick.html [2] http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/more.html#(part._.Type_.Inference) http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/more.html#(part._.Type_...
  - asdasf 13y ago
    But they are essentially garbage are they not? Adding java-style static typing is not helpful at all. The benefits of static typing are very much tied to the power of the type system in question.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      >"The benefits of static typing are very much tied to the power of the type system in question." One of the main benefits of static typing is to detect errors at compile time which is a benefit of typed Scheme compilers too. BTW, static typing goes way before Java :)
      - asdasf 13y ago
        >One of the main benefits of static typing is to detect errors at compile time Obviously. But a static type system that lacks power and expressiveness is very constraining and can detect very few classes of errors. Hence the example of java, a very inexpressive static type system. >BTW, static typing goes way before Java :) Again, obviously. Why are you saying random obvious things to me?
        coldtea 13y ago
        Because they seem to elude you, especially if you think Racket was given an "Java-style static typing".
        asdasf 13y ago
        Your comment is even dumber than I would expect from you. That is a very impressive feat. Non-sequiturs don't become relevant because you say "DURRRR".
    - takikawa 13y ago
      Typed Racket definitely doesn't add a "Java-style static typing" system at all. Its type system is quite specifically designed to accommodate the kinds of programming idioms you find in Racket programs (via occurrence typing, function intersection types, and so on), and comes with local type inference.