On 06/21/2013 05:23 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
> The Internet is rife with stuff regarding the Expression problem. Pretty
> much any major language has some posting, paper or article on how it is
> addressed to some degree by the language in question.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_proble
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Todd O'Bryan wrote:
> Whoa! I had no idea that Shriram and the rest of the Rice group were
> the impetus for the distillation/clarification and naming of "The
> Expression Problem."
To set the record straight, since this is a public forum:
We (Matthias and I) cal
Whoa! I had no idea that Shriram and the rest of the Rice group were
the impetus for the distillation/clarification and naming of "The
Expression Problem." I'm continually amazed that I've had a chance to
interact with people who've had such a fundamental impact on the
field. And because I came to
Thanks a lot for the responses. I really appreciate it.
It's reassuring to hear many of my assumptions echoed back. And the
mention of the Expression Problem has led me to uncover additional articles
on the topic besides the original Krishnamurti, et al paper.
Scott.
Rack
The Internet is rife with stuff regarding the Expression problem. Pretty
much any major language has some posting, paper or article on how it is
addressed to some degree by the language in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem
It's a can I have my cake and eat it too issue.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:39:12AM -0400, Ray Racine wrote:
...
>
> 4) The Expression Problem
>For whatever reason one can code in OO without ever noting the
> expression problem. After a bit of functional programming you note it,
> even if you don't know what it's been called or the dual na
Speaking from a reasonable amount of experience in "real-world" composing
code in a polyphony of styles, idioms, methodologies and languages, I have
reached a few (personal) conclusions.
1) Functional vs OO -> Functional by a landslide where the critical factors
are Code Correctness, Maintainabili
Anecdotal...
Racket is a powerful general-purpose algorithmic language, including a
bunch of great facilities for mini-languages, plus some standard
libraries (like "racket/class") that support different ``paradigms''.
Early in my career, I did a lot of industry R&D work on methodology and
C
Just last week I stumbled across this:
"Solving the Expression Problem with Clojure 1.2
Extend preexisting types to new methods, and preexisting methods to new types"
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-clojure-protocols/
If that resonates with you, then someone more knowledgable than me
The definition and essence of "object" is not always agreed upon
(encapsulation, polymorphism, state, ...), but since you're wondering
about objects versus functions (purely functional), the "versus" implies
a difference about an object that makes it impure, or the comparison
isn't so helpful.
On 2013-06-20 15:19:14 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> You may wish to check out the generics library in git head (developed
> by Eli, Vincent, Asumu, and Claire -- a kind of historic order) to see
> whether it fits your needs.
Side note: any version v5.3 or later of Racket has the `racket/gene
1. Yes, extensible dispatch allows for elegant solutions of the 'extensibility
problem' that we worked on in the 1990s. Manuel Serrano pointed that out in '99
and again in '00, and by coincidence, we discussed this today in a meeting on
generics.
2. Choose depending on your existing context (
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Scott Klarenbach wrote:
> both methods achieve reuse and it's just a matter of preference?
Agreed.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
13 matches
Mail list logo
