Re: Some exciting new trends in concurrency and software design

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:40:36 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Not that it matters most, or is most important to the subject
> of understanding modularity and parallelism,  but I must mention
> that there remain a few major blind spots in FP circles, IMHO.
> It won't help as is.
>
>  "There is nothing more dreary than the corporate
>   bureaucracy of OOP, and few things more lovely
>   than the mathematical elegance of FP."
>
> Yes, I'd agree that O-O bureaucracy and spaghetti code can be
> correlated.  Why, however, do we not seem to see bureaucracy in ML
> source text?
>
> 0. There is less ML text.  Different problem domains, too.
> Perhaps suggesting a different kind of program right from the start.
>
> 1. Actually, they use imperative style or suitable contortions
> in functional programming when efficiency is required.  I remember
> looking at the chapter on Fusions in Bird's FP in Haskell
> book. The chapter's subject is messy, the approach produces
> text similar to the lengthier noodles in Wirth's algorithms book,
> conflating things for efficiency reasons.  Where is the mathematical
> elegance in that?
My small-talk: this is simply failing with the simple rule which is “use  
the best language for what it is best suited”. Troubles comes when you  
want only one for everything.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit