>> ...which would just mean writing programs as mathematical statements 
>> rather than lists of instructions. It would just be another 
>> programming language. And, you know, people have argued that 
>> programming in Haskell is like programming with mathematics, so...
>  >
>> [One might also mention Mathematica.]
> 
> Another fallacy of that time (and possibly with the functional 
> programming approach) was the assumption that computer programs would 
> always have the purpose of solving inherently mathematical problems - 
> and that programming would therefore always be done by studied 
> mathematicians.
> 
> Now I guess the math required to program a word processor or an e-mail 
> client is not /that/ complicated :-)

Some people might retort that too few programmers realise the deep 
mathematical structure of the programs they're trying to implement. :-P

For example, Darcs is a version control system, much like RCS or CVS 
are. But Darcs has an "algebra of changesets". Basically this dictates 
the possible ways in which changesets can be applied. (If you think this 
is barking mad, recall that databases are based on the relational 
algebra, and that works just fine.)

To my knowledge, nobody has written a word-processor or e-mail client in 
Haskell yet. But they have written an IRC bot, and a text editor along 
the lines of Emacs. [Possibly the least-usable text editor in history...]

"Mathematics" isn't just about calculating things, you know.

> Unfortunately, the functional approach is quite brain-wrecking for 
> anyone not trained in university-level mathematical thinking - or so it 
> appears to me.

Heh, well... I suspect it only appears that way due to the strange 
notation and unusual technical terms. I have no mathematical training of 
any description at all, and I can work it...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message