|
 |
On 13-Sep-08 9:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>>> Because Haskell is not imperative and doesn't use modules. Haskell uses
>>> a paradigm which does not correspond to how normal people think.
>
>> Which really is simply because it is not taught at school.
<restored context>
>> There is no reason for that other than tradition. Trust me,
>> it can be learned and be as natural as Boolean algebra, base eight
>> (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=a81YvrV7Vv8) or finite state machines,
>> none of which is taught at highschool nowadays (anymore*).
</restored context>
>
> Usually no programming languages are taught in normal school (unless
> you specialize), but imperative OO languages still correspond better to
> how people naturally think of tasks.
>
> People don't think of tasks with recursive mathematical definitions.
>
They do to some extend, about as much as they naturally think in solving
equations*. Much of what we learn at maths and physics is some sort of
formalization of things we do when solving problems. The techniques and
theories we learn at school are just an arbitrary selection of the
available knowledge. Whether something was natural or not has not been a
reason to include something in the curriculum. If the teachers two or
more generations later try to suggest otherwise, they are more trying to
justify themselves than historically accurate.
Actually part of the motivation of the functional programming designers
was that functional programming better matches to mathematics than
imperative programming. More or less the same holds for declarative
languages that are meant to be a formalization of our logic reasoning.
In short: imperative, declarative, and functional programming (etc.) all
are meant to capture (parts of) normal human reasoning. If you think one
is more natural to people than another that mainly shows that you have
more experience in that style than in others.
*Which may be much more than you normally realize.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
