Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses

Re: Resources for Functional Programming?

by flyingmoose (Priest)
on Mar 17, 2004 at 14:29 UTC ( [id://337338]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Resources for Functional Programming?

I feel at some point I must learn Haskell (or OCaml or something) due to the coolness of the functional programming competition and the power evidenced in those languages.

My AI class in college was taught in lisp. I found Lisp to be cool, but limited in terms of provided API's bindings, etc... is Haskell any better in that extent? Are there options for graphics libraries (i.e. if you were sick-and-twisted enough can you do OpenGL in Haskell?).

Anyhow, these kind of languages are what Computer Science is meant to be about. It's what draws me to Perl. Text processing isn't a huge chunk of the allure -- more so, it's the closures, anonymous subroutines, and other constructs which are more closely related to Lisp and other languages -- and harder to implement in most of the "business" languages of the day.

It appears Haskell is the way to go -- after all, one won't go blind from reading on too many parenthesis :)

As an aside, I'm a graduate of NC State University, where my AI professor lead a little project called 'Mimesis'...essentially there were writing an intelligent story generator in Lisp that drove a Quake engine which retold part of the story of Beowulf. Interesting idea -- but I knew one of the guys who worked on it -- and he said he had to roll his own XML parser in Lisp! Ouch! Things like that tend to keep me away from new languages, when the tools aren't there -- Perl is nice in this manner because there is a low barrier to entry in any sort of new task -- and a strong toolkit. But yes, it's too easy to think you are doing functional programming when you are not.

  • Comment on Re: Resources for Functional Programming?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Resources for Functional Programming?
by hding (Chaplain) on Mar 17, 2004 at 14:43 UTC

    That last bit is always the rub, no? If something is largely pre-implemented (via CPAN, etc.) in Perl and Perl will perform adequately, I tend to use it. If I'm going to need to write a lot of my own code I tend to use Lisp. Fortunately more and more useful stuff is becoming available in Lisp all the time, e.g. at Cliki. Anywhere near CPAN? No. But often enough to push the amount of stuff I need to do on my own down enough to where I can use Lisp.

      Thanks for the Lispy links. I *did* like Lisp, it was just that I didn't know how to do a lot in it. Fun language, challenges your neurons to reprogram themselves, and I consider that a Good Thing (TM).
Re^2: Resources for Functional Programming?
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Mar 20, 2004 at 09:56 UTC

    Actually, I find XML to be pretty simple to parse. If you know XML well and you have a decent grasp on parsing in general, writing a non-validating XML parser is a simple task. Not surprisingly, either, as that was one of the stated goals of the working group, after SGML failed to be accepted due for the most part to excessive complexity.

    But, yeah, having to hand roll all the tools for every aspect of the task at hand is boring drone work.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://337338]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-07-15 14:58 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    erzuuli‥ 🛈The London Perl and Raku Workshop takes place on 26th Oct 2024. If your company depends on Perl, please consider sponsoring and/or attending.