 Contributing (?) Editors
started 10/6/2002; 7:28:31 AM - last post 10/8/2002; 2:23:58 PM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Contributing (?) Editors 
10/6/2002; 7:28:31 AM (reads: 1307, responses: 10)
|
|
| Contributing (?) Editors |
|
I want to thank Jon for the great links he comes up with and posts to LtU. But where are all the other editors?
Programming languages provide a wide variety of issues and research topics and each of you has his own point of view, and interests.
So instead of thinking to yourself, "long time since there was a good link on the things I am interested in" - post one yourself!
Posted to admin by Ehud Lamm on 10/6/02; 7:30:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Doug Ransom - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/6/2002; 8:33:37 AM (reads: 856, responses: 0)
|
|
|
A really good class of articles that could appear but doesn't would discuss languages that interoperate well with ECMA CLI/CLR/CIL (dotnet) or Java type frameworks.
Nobody seems to do any work in this area, and without it functional programming just cannot take off.
For example, I already have an xml reader for dotnet. Can functional programming still provide an advantage of C# for processing?
Is it hard for the programmer?
Is it hard for the machine?
I challenge to functional programming world to give me a useful alternative to C#.
|
|
Dan Phillips - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/6/2002; 1:16:10 PM (reads: 842, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I occasionally come across a link that I think LtU readers may be interested in, but I don't really consider myself knowledgeable enough to be an editor.
Perhaps there needs to be a way to send in stories which the editors can post or not at their choosing?
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/6/2002; 1:25:02 PM (reads: 887, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Sure.
Best way is to post an item in the discussion group. If an editor will find it interesting enough, he'll promote to the home page (acutally, we have to post a new item, but we can link to or copy the item you create).
If you don't want to do this you can always email the link (and a short comment, if at all possible) to me.
|
|
Michael Vanier - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/6/2002; 3:01:16 PM (reads: 840, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I guess my feeling is that if each contributing editor posts one new article a week, there will be plenty of stuff for us all to read. Maybe it's just been a slow week ;-)
|
|
Frank Atanassow - VM-targetting FP implementations
10/7/2002; 3:34:02 AM (reads: 812, responses: 1)
|
|
languages that interoperate well with ECMA CLI/CLR/CIL (dotnet) or Java type frameworks.
Here are some implementations which target the VMs:
SML.NET and
F#
are, respectively, Standard ML and Ocaml (derivative)
implementations that target .NET;
MLj
is a Standard ML implementation targetting the JVM;
and
SISC and
Kawa
are Schemes targetting the JVM.
If you are really talking about type system issues, then there is a paper:
Mark Shields and Simon Peyton Jones. Object-Oriented Style Overloading for Haskell. In the Workshop on Multi-Language Infrastructure and Interoperability (BABEL'01), Florence, Italy. 20 pages. Sep 2001.
Though it isn't mentioned in the abstract, when I heard Mark Shields present a talk on this paper, he said that it was specifically designed to address the issues which arise when Haskell interoperates with the CLR.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: VM-targetting FP implementations
10/7/2002; 4:05:52 AM (reads: 852, responses: 0)
|
|
|
A small part of this is language related. Two reasons: the VMs are designed for specific types of languages (e.g., tail recursion support), and the libraries are desgined for a specific programming paradigm (e.g., OOP)
|
|
jon fernquest - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/8/2002; 3:34:49 AM (reads: 756, responses: 1)
|
|
> A really good class of articles that could appear
> but doesn't would discuss
> languages that interoperate well with ECMA
> CLI/CLR/CIL (dotnet) or Java type frameworks.
> Nobody seems to do any work in this area,
> and without it functional programming just cannot take off.
I agree. It seems like the momentum in this area has lost steam.
IMHO XML and GUI's are where the killer functional programming app lies waiting (or at least uses ideas from functional programming and theory of types)
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-matters14.html
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/messagx1104
The work on functional gui's doesn't seem to be being applied to .NET?
Maybe the real problem:
no one really wants to work for Microsoft for free.
Maybe this will change when Mono is released and there
is a .NET for Unix also.
> A small part of this is language related. Two reasons: the
> VMs are designed for specific types of languages
> (e.g., tail recursion support).
Yeah, Haskell's VM is the Spineless Tagless V-Machine and Prolog's is the
Warren Abstract Machine. How could a .NET VM implementation hope to match the performance
of these?
> and the libraries are desgined for a specific programming paradigm (e.g., OOP)
Most OOP paradigm based libraries seem to be pretty usable with other
paradigms, don't they?
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/8/2002; 3:45:14 AM (reads: 800, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Maybe people working in these areas don't read LtU, and hence don't contribute to this debate? In some places we are seen as a FP blog. This is not, repeast not, true.
Most OOP paradigm based libraries seem to be pretty usable with other paradigms, don't they?
Well, it seems to me that we have no choice. If you want to write guis, you must support these libraries. So language designers do.
But, this takes a lot of work, the programming style is often different than what the programmer is used to, and worse of all, if he really wants to know what's going on he has to learn OOP.
This is bad marketing: If you want to use your functional language to do gui work, first go learn OOP 
|
|
Dan Moniz - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/8/2002; 2:06:04 PM (reads: 745, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I'm a slacking editor, guilty as charged, but I'll make a lame case for my absenteeism: being busy and not being terribly connected to the academic language community beyond being an interested observer and itinerant tinkerer. Unfortunately, my professional life has almost zilch to do with programming language research at the moment (mores the pity) so I don't find myself stumbling across interesting papers that often unless it's just me looking around, and then I usually find things that I think LtU people have already seen or posted about.
Having said all that, I'll see what I can do about improving.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Contributing (?) Editors
10/8/2002; 2:23:58 PM (reads: 791, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Notice that the google search box is quite effective (much more than the editthispage box), so you can easily check if an item has already been mentioned here.
|
|
|
|