I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Richard A. O'Keefe

On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is  
> fundamentally sequential; parallel computers have been around for a  
> little while now...

You've never been talking on the phone while stirring a pot with one  
hand
and wiping down a child with the other?

You've never read (part of) a book while watching a TV program and  
been able
to summarize both afterwards?

You've never played the piano while talking about something else?

Human *verbalisation* is fundamental, human *thinking* is not.

(It's not unboundedly parallel either.)

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Richard A. O'Keefe

On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>
> Human *verbalisation* is fundamental, human *thinking* is not.

Sigh.  Accidentally lean on the wrong key and half your text disappears.

Human *verbalisation* is fundamentally sequential.
Human *thinking* is not.

I don't know any sign language myself, but I am aware that since
people have faces and two hands, there is a limited amount of
concurrency in some sign languages.  (E.g., you can give place
and manner at the same time.)

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

John Dorsey-2
In reply to this post by Richard A. O'Keefe

Andrew Coppin said:
>> Sure. But what is a computer program?

then Richard O'Keefe said:
> A computer program, in short, is *whatever we want it to be*.
> (Within reasonable limits.)

I agree with Richard's conclusion.

>From where I sit, the critical point is that, unless you're breadboarding,
programming is working in the abstract, and we choose our abstractions.
There's a strong tradition of sequential imperative programming, but that's
as far as it goes.

John

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

Curt Sampson-2
In reply to this post by Alberto G. Corona
On 2009-10-01 18:47 +0200 (Thu), Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> May be because consciousness is relatively new and thus, not optimized.

Actually, no; our brains are very, very highly optimized. Only they're
optimized for minimum power usage, not making the best decisions.

For more information, see Read Montague's _Your Brain Is (Almost)
Perfect: How We Make Decisions_.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <[hidden email]>        +81 90 7737 2974
           Functional programming in all senses of the word:
                   http://www.starling-software.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
123