On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:23:59 Serguey Zefirov wrote: > > 2010/2/2 Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>: > > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:10:05 Serguey Zefirov wrote: > > >> Actually, your solution with arrays is the most often occured solution > > >> an imperative programmer will come with. It is simple but not scalable > > >> and not particularly fast. > > > > > > What gave you that impression? > > > > Discussion in Russian Smalltalk User Group. > > A solution in APL: http://catpad.net/michael/apl/ > > Some experience before (my own first implementation and some of my > > friends). > > > > Or, you're asking about scalability and speed? > > I meant the scalability and speed. An imperative solution should be > simpler, > more scalable and faster than any purely functional solution. > That's a pretty strange comment. Why do you think an imperative solution is simpler, faster and more scalable? If functional programming can't provide any one of those, it's not worth anything, and based on the membership in this list, the interest in it these days, and the fact that I've seen many occasions where functional programming lends itself to a faster implementation (in terms of time to implement and test) that's actually readable sooner than a lot of imperative approaches, I find your claim to be quite contrary and smells of "trollishness". Dave > > -- > Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
