From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA09494; Sat, 3 May 2003 18:58:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA11921 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 18:58:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from eposta.kablonet.com.tr ([62.248.102.66]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h43Gw7H06288 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 18:58:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 18223 invoked by uid 0); 3 May 2003 17:05:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 195.174.169.185) (exa@kablonet.com.tr@195.174.169.185) by 0 with SMTP; 3 May 2003 17:05:34 -0000 From: Eray Ozkural Reply-To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: John Max Skaller Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Easy solution in OCaml? Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 19:57:27 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Cc: David Brown , caml-list@inria.fr References: <20030427164326.34082.qmail@web41211.mail.yahoo.com> <200304282114.37271.exa@kablonet.com.tr> <3EB3D43C.3030701@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3EB3D43C.3030701@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200305031957.27055.exa@kablonet.com.tr> X-Spam: no; 0.00; eray:01 ozkural:01 caml-list:01 closures:01 haskell:01 monadic:01 sequencing:01 burdensome:01 erayo:01 bilkent:01 ankara:01 kde:01 malfunction:01 ariza:01 compiler:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Saturday 03 May 2003 17:37, John Max Skaller wrote: > Eray Ozkural wrote: > > On Monday 28 April 2003 17:22, David Brown wrote: > >>To me, the core feature of functional programming are first class > >>closures. Everything else just makes it more convenient. > > > > Well said. I would also like to say here that I fail to see what > > distinguishes the core of ocaml and haskell so much from a semantics > > point of view!!!!!!! > > Laziness. I know all the fluff about laziness. I wrote code that used so-called "infinite graphs" and another code that did have higher order functions which used monadic parameters and a lot of sequencing of monadic code if you want to verify that. But I, as a programmer not as a lambda-calculus addict, see laziness as an "evaluation strategy" not as a deep semantic difference. What I meant is whether this difference is exaggerated. I think it is, and I also think that monadic I/O is just a pretty (and burdensome) way of writing sequential code. Something that isn't wildly interesting from a semantic POV. Here is what I'm trying to really mean: I can write a compiler for a subset of ocaml that uses only lazy evaluation. [*] Right or wrong? [*] For any pure functional language I should be able to do that. Just like Haskell compilers I don't really have to care whether the resulting code will work reasonably or not. -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners