Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer :
> Though after pondering a bit I realized that it indeed seems impossible
> to compile "(.bar foo)" (could result from "foo[.bar]" via SRFI-105)
> into the correct memory offset, if there are multiple record types each
> with a '.bar' field, because it's not statical
Panicz Maciej Godek :
> 2014-09-05 22:44 GMT+02:00 Marko Rauhamaa :
>> However, objects, in my opinion, are the antithesis of tuples.
>> Objects are the focal points of methods. Whether the black box
>> contains data and in what form is none of the rest of the world's
>> concern.
>
> Apparently ou
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Dynamic programming languages lack a true, efficient dot notation.
If with a "true, efficient dot notation" you mean for example C structs,
then records fill that role except for using accessor procedures instead
of syntax.
(Under the right conditions, usage of records
2014-09-05 22:44 GMT+02:00 Marko Rauhamaa :
> Panicz Maciej Godek :
>
>> I think that it is a big problem of Scheme, that it does not have any
>> noncontroversial and commonly accepted way for creating named tuples.
>
> That's what alists are. They may not be the most beautiful way to
> represent d
Panicz Maciej Godek :
> There are other representations (like basket list or assoc list) that
> avoid that problem, but they generate other ones -- namely, that the
> access times get linear, and in case of assoc lists there is a huge
> overhead of data, and in case of basket lists one needs to pa
"Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer" writes:
> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>
>> [...] it's hard for me to see the advantage of FRP over OOP in
>> practical systems (e.g. windowed applications with buttons and so
>> on). [...]
>
> An off-topic remark:
>
> I don't know about *functional* reactive progra
Panicz Maciej Godek :
> I think that it is a big problem of Scheme, that it does not have any
> noncontroversial and commonly accepted way for creating named tuples.
That's what alists are. They may not be the most beautiful way to
represent data as S expressions but they sure are noncontroversia
2014-09-05 22:18 GMT+02:00 Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer
:
> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>
>> [...] I think that it is a big problem of Scheme, that it does not
>> have any noncontroversial and commonly accepted way for creating named
>> tuples.
>
> Does SRFI-9 not count because it creates tuple *t
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> [...] I think that it is a big problem of Scheme, that it does not
> have any noncontroversial and commonly accepted way for creating named
> tuples.
Does SRFI-9 not count because it creates tuple *types* and doesn't
support immediate creation of tuples of an "anony
:
>> http://elm-lang.org/learn/What-is-FRP.elm
>>
>> Using FRP, we can model with mutable state in a pure, functional way.
OTOH, when you take a look at the example code (Mario), you can trace
the notion of objects. E.g.
mario = { x = 0, y = 0, vx = 0, vy = 0, dir = "right" }
What else is that, i
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> [...] it's hard for me to see the advantage of FRP over OOP in
> practical systems (e.g. windowed applications with buttons and so
> on). [...]
An off-topic remark:
I don't know about *functional* reactive programming but from my
experience so far as an iOS develop
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> 2014-09-05 21:12 GMT+02:00 David Thompson :
>> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>>>
>>> So perhaps you could tell me how to design a GUI framework in FP and
>>> without OOP. To me it seems that GUI is the main domain the OOP was
>>> crafted for, but if you have some nice
2014-09-05 21:12 GMT+02:00 David Thompson :
> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>>
>> So perhaps you could tell me how to design a GUI framework in FP and
>> without OOP. To me it seems that GUI is the main domain the OOP was
>> crafted for, but if you have some nice functional ideas, perhaps you
>> cou
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>
> So perhaps you could tell me how to design a GUI framework in FP and
> without OOP. To me it seems that GUI is the main domain the OOP was
> crafted for, but if you have some nice functional ideas, perhaps you
> could help me to redesign my framework.
>
Are you fam
2014-09-05 10:32 GMT+02:00 Nala Ginrut :
> Hi Carlos!
>
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 23:05 -0300, Carlos Pita wrote:
>
>> 2) What is the relationship between the lambda* family and methods?
>> Are methods restricted in the sense that they can't aspire to get the
>> greater flexibility of lambda* paramet
Carlos Pita writes:
> Thank you very much, Dave!
>
>> Couldn't you just use (error)? It will enter the debugger if run from
>
> I'm doing exactly that, but then there is the limitation that this
> would be postmortem debugging and sometimes I want to suspend
> execution, examine the environment,
Hi Nala,
> IMO, when you have lambda*, you never need define-method. Actually, I
> want to say, once you have such FP features, you don't need OOP
> anymore.
I really don't see classes and multimethods a la CLOS competing against
FP features. They are about certain ways of composing structures an
Hi Carlos!
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 23:05 -0300, Carlos Pita wrote:
> 2) What is the relationship between the lambda* family and methods?
> Are methods restricted in the sense that they can't aspire to get the
> greater flexibility of lambda* parameter handling? Maybe because of
> the way dispatchin
18 matches
Mail list logo
