 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Mine works for *any* type that supports the + operator too. ;-)
>
> Does it work for things like balanced binary trees, double-ended queues,
> arrays and strings (ie. sum the ascii values of the characters in a string)?
> In other words, does it work for all possible containers which items you
> can iterate over?
The implementation I posted works only for lists. (And this - or
something equivilent to it - is what the standard library actually
contains.)
> No, I'm not saying that with the proper language it wouldn't be possible
> to make such a function as a short one-liner. I'm just curious to know if
> Haskell is such a language.
It would be perfectly possible to define a class that allows the
iteration of arbitrary collections. But such a thing is not currently
present in the standard libraries.
As I say, it seems the currently "accepted way" is to define a
transformation from any iteratable structure into a list, and then apply
list-specific operations there. The compiler seems to be rather good at
removing the apparent overhead with this method.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Half the developers working on Haskell are Micro$oft employees.
>
> Who's the other one working for then? ;-)
>:-[
(This isn't my happy face.)
Actually, they work for various universities.
>> I can't begin to imagine in what universe that even makes sense - M$
>> is pushing F#, not Haskell. So why...? WTF...?
>
> MS is a big company, they don't just write OSs.
No, they write flawed software of many kinds. (Or just buy it from other
people.) Still not sure why they'd be interested in software that makes
it easier to write *quality* software - where's the profit in that?
>> The majority of non-trivial Haskell code doesn't work properly on
>> Windoze. Only Linux. Or maybe Mac OS. But not Windoze.
>
> Why is that? Is it a problem with the Windows compiler?
The only "working" Haskell compiler runs off GNU build tools such as
gcc, gas and ld. It also uses automake and Perl. (WTF-overload.)
Most of the things that don't work on Windoze are Haskell bindings to C
libraries. Anything that's 100% Haskell works flawlessly on all
platforms, but linking to C is fiddly. I'm told you need to install a
Unix emulator such as Cygwin to make it work - which obviously I have no
intension of doing.
>> So M$ are paying people to develop stuff that doesn't even propperly
>> support M$'s own flagship product...? OK, I'm completely lost now!
>
> Who knows, maybe parts of the next MS OS will be written using a
> functional language? I'm sure they are investigating such
> possibilities, they can't afford not to.
Heh. I doubt it.
(Not that you care, but there *is* in fact a Haskell OS. But it's a
research project rather than something end-users would be interested in.
I didn't think it was even in active development any more, but
apparently there are people still working on it...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> scott wrote:
>>> Half the developers working on Haskell are Micro$oft employees.
>>
>> Who's the other one working for then? ;-)
>
> >:-[
>
> (This isn't my happy face.)
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/03/06/funny-pictures-mah-happi-face/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Maybe if they *had* written it in Haskell it would have come to market
> much faster, cheaper, and it would have actually *worked* properly. :-P
>
And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell, they'd
actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure they've
reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old bugs, yes.
Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe if they *had* written it in Haskell it would have come to market
>> much faster, cheaper, and it would have actually *worked* properly. :-P
>
> And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell, they'd
> actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure they've
> reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old bugs, yes.
> Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
Well, I'm told they rewrote a lot of it already, but yeah, you're
probably right...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>
>> And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell,
>> they'd actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure
>> they've reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old
>> bugs, yes. Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
>
> Well, I'm told they rewrote a lot of it already, but yeah, you're
> probably right...
>
Surely yes, lots and lots of new code (hence lots and lots of new
bugs;). But as far as I understand economic world of programming, it can
easily be cheaper to loan (working) code from earlier version than
rewrite from scratch (eg. some tiny applications that don't actually
change - that would mean rewriting the *same* code again, which is
simply stupid).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell,
>>> they'd actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure
>>> they've reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old
>>> bugs, yes. Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
>>
>> Well, I'm told they rewrote a lot of it already, but yeah, you're
>> probably right...
>>
>
> Surely yes, lots and lots of new code (hence lots and lots of new
> bugs;).
They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they
had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping packet
forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode
infinite loop, locking up the system badly)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they
> had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping packet
> forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode
> infinite loop, locking up the system badly)
History repeats itself :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they
>> had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping
>> packet forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a
>> kernel-mode infinite loop, locking up the system badly)
>
> History repeats itself :).
Or "Micro$oft still hasn't learned how to write a network stack properly
even after 10 years", whichever you prefer...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Half the developers working on Haskell are Micro$oft employees.
>
> Who's the other one working for then? ;-)
Some obscure medical lab in the UK, I heard...
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
