Re: Re: Programming and math

Lambda calculus for functional programming won't help more then Turing Machine for imperative programming. This is just the simplistic model for proving some theory.

Update: This is just a comparison. I really do not say that lambda calculus or Turing Machines are useless. To the contrary - as I've explained somwhere else in this thread I believe it is quite importand to know some theory - because only theory would give you sound reasoning why something is impossible.

Comment on Re: Re: Programming and math

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
3Re: Programming and math by jeffa (Bishop) on Aug 11, 2003 at 14:52 UTC
Please define help, because some people consider proving theories to be quite helpful. My definition was something along the lines of "it doesn't hurt" - so i will stick to what i said: "if you want to get into functional programming, then a good knowledge of lambda calculus will surely help". That is, of course, generally speaking - YMMV. Please don't discourage anyone from learning something new. jeffa L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L-- -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B-- H---H---H---H---H---H--- (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)	[reply]
Re: 3Re: Programming and math by zby (Vicar) on Aug 12, 2003 at 09:49 UTC
I just compared the helpfullness of lambda calculus to that of Turing Machine. I believe both have some value. Perhaps you are right that mine comment could discourage people to learn lambda calculus - and I should formulate it a bit more carefully. But I just tried to be honest. Lambda calculus was quite nice, but it is too low level to be any practical and the interesting parts start when you learn the extensions to the lambda calculus like the F-system (where you get the ultimate polimorfism).	[reply]


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks