From: Martin Chabr <martin_chabr@yahoo.de>
To: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:36:08 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051001213609.88104.qmail@web26808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050930225737.GA592@first.in-berlin.de>
Hello Oliver,
I am trying to find a programming style within the
spectrum of possibilities which OCaml supports. This
programming style should be easy to produce, easy to
read and efficient in runtime.
Sometimes a nested system of "for" or "while" loops
appears simpler to me than a system of recursive
calls. Sometimes such systems of recursive calls
remind me of undisciplined goto jumps.
There is an excellent OCaml tutorial at:
http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/.
In this tutorial the author gives a simple example of
a stack-blowing, non-tail-recursive code. The
following tail-recursive version takes two functions
instead of one and is relatively much more complex. In
general, for the real world problems, it is much
worse. I cite the author:
"That was a brief overview of tail recursion, but in
real world situations determining if a function is
tail recursive can be quite hard." I believe him.
This is at:
http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/if_statements,_loops_and_recursion
section tail recursion.
I think that some problems, like simple operations on
lists, can be easier described by pattern matching and
recursion, whereas for others it appears more natural
to take loops.
I also think that what looks simple or not depends on
the person. I myself have spent half of my life with
imperative languages.
Regards,
Martin
--- Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:07:30PM +0200, Martin
> Chabr wrote:
> > Hello William,
> >
> > I am using a mutable record. I am programming this
> 90%
> > in the imperative (non-functional) style, so that
> I
> > can rewrite critical parts into Fortran easily.
> > Another reason is, I am an intermediate user and
> > finding out whether the recursion is a tail-one or
> not
> > is difficult for me.
>
> When you 90% of your code are writing in imperative
> style
> and do not go deeper into the functional/recursive
> world, you will never be able to distinguish between
> tail-rec and non-tail-rec style.
>
> But: It is not really hard to find the distinction
> betwen
> the two styles, but often the explanations are not
> made
> well.
> Sometimes it's only one or two words in an
> explanation about
> tail-rec/non-tail-rec that must be substituted by
> other words,
> and the distinction can be made visible very easy.
>
> On the other hand: writing mor funtional/recursive
> code will
> make you more used to to this...
>
> Ciao,
> Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
___________________________________________________________
Was denken Sie über E-Mail? Wir hören auf Ihre Meinung: http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p0379378.aspx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-01 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-25 21:32 Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 0:23 ` [Caml-list] " Bill Wood
2005-09-26 7:57 ` Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
2005-09-26 8:17 ` William Lovas
2005-09-26 21:07 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 22:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-09-30 22:57 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-01 0:07 ` Pal-Kristian Engstad
2005-10-01 5:46 ` Bill Wood
2005-10-01 8:27 ` Wolfgang Lux
2005-10-01 18:02 ` Wolfgang Lux
2005-10-01 21:50 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-01 12:34 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-01 13:58 ` Bill Wood
2005-10-01 21:05 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-03 0:41 ` skaller
2005-10-03 1:13 ` Seth J. Fogarty
2005-10-03 13:09 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-10-03 14:57 ` skaller
2005-10-03 20:03 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-03 20:25 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-10-03 21:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 18:06 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-04 18:32 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 2:53 ` skaller
2005-10-04 16:15 ` Brian Hurt
2005-10-04 16:47 ` FP/IP and performance (in general) and Patterns... (Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data) Oliver Bandel
2005-10-04 22:38 ` Michael Wohlwend
2005-10-05 0:31 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-04 22:39 ` Christopher A. Watford
2005-10-04 23:14 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-05 12:10 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-10-05 13:08 ` Jon Harrop
2005-10-05 15:28 ` skaller
2005-10-05 20:52 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-10-05 23:21 ` Markus Mottl
2005-10-06 16:54 ` brogoff
2005-10-05 0:45 ` Brian Hurt
2005-10-04 18:09 ` Ant: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data Martin Chabr
2005-10-05 8:42 ` skaller
2005-10-05 11:14 ` Andrej Bauer
2005-10-01 21:36 ` Martin Chabr [this message]
2005-10-03 11:51 ` getting used to FP-programming (Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data) Oliver Bandel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051001213609.88104.qmail@web26808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com \
--to=martin_chabr@yahoo.de \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=oliver@first.in-berlin.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).