3 ms·

When he started to write about writing (military) simulations in a functional style, I really expected a reference to this paper http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/?pos

by fhars 13y ago

When he started to write about writing (military) simulations in a functional style, I really expected a reference to this paper http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/?post_type=publication&p=366 http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/?post_type=publication&p=366 which is one of the rare examples of a real empirical experiment in software enginering. (And it is going to turn twenty this year, we are not learning very fast as a community).

jholman 13y ago
Interesting paper. When I look at the outputs, I think "this looks like a very simple homework assignment". If they had provided sample input, as well as sample output, I'd be able to test my belief. I imagine I can produce functionally-equivalent Python code in a few hours (note: Python was not a reasonable option in 1993). In any case, this is a test in prototyping, with guidance of "5 person-days of effort"), so you would certainly expect languages like C++ and Ada to fail spectacularly.
- taeric 13y ago
  It was interesting to read about how bloody fast the lisp implementation was written. That seems insanely fast. Presumably the author was one heck of a specialist in the field. And... it is notable that with such a lower amount of documentation, it still did not score much worse than the Haskel solutions did. (I really need to learn lisp well.... Also, be in a place I could use it.)
NigelTufnel 13y ago
This is not the most fair paper (it could be described as: two Haskell language designers kick program-manager-struggling with-pre-STL-C++'s ass) but it's an interesting reading. It would be great to see this paper's experiment conducted in the modern world. Haskell vs Python vs C++11 vs Clojure vs whatever. Actually it would be great to have a site like http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ that focuses on program readability, development speed etc.
- BSousa 13y ago
  Not an holy grail, bur take a look at Rosetta Code : http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code

by fhars 13y ago

jholman 13y ago

Interesting paper. When I look at the outputs, I think "this looks like a very simple homework assignment". If they had provided sample input, as well as sample output, I'd be able to test my belief. I imagine I can produce functionally-equivalent Python code in a few hours (note: Python was not a reasonable option in 1993). In any case, this is a test in prototyping, with guidance of "5 person-days of effort"), so you would certainly expect languages like C++ and Ada to fail spectacularly.

taeric 13y ago
It was interesting to read about how bloody fast the lisp implementation was written. That seems insanely fast. Presumably the author was one heck of a specialist in the field. And... it is notable that with such a lower amount of documentation, it still did not score much worse than the Haskel solutions did. (I really need to learn lisp well.... Also, be in a place I could use it.)

NigelTufnel 13y ago

This is not the most fair paper (it could be described as: two Haskell language designers kick program-manager-struggling with-pre-STL-C++'s ass) but it's an interesting reading. It would be great to see this paper's experiment conducted in the modern world. Haskell vs Python vs C++11 vs Clojure vs whatever. Actually it would be great to have a site like http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ that focuses on program readability, development speed etc.

BSousa 13y ago
Not an holy grail, bur take a look at Rosetta Code : http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code