in reply to Re^6: Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?
in thread Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?

I dearly hope that you will come back and see this.

I cannot thankyou enough for the link to Backus. I understand why this is your favorite. I think it may well become one of mine. Actually I think it already is, and I haven't finished reading it yet.

What a refreshing change from most of the other papers I have been reading. Clear points, made with clear explanations and clear examples. Where he uses algebraic notation, each symbol is briefly described, in-situ.

By the time I finished section 11, I understood why I so want to like FP. Simplicity, brevity, clarity. Thankyou.

30 years on, his presentation style shows why the greats are.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."
  • Comment on Re^7: Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 17, 2007 at 15:36 UTC
    You're welcome. And if you really want to get into functional programming or Haskell, I still recommend getting a book, rather than slogging throught PDFs and online tutorials. And although I admire your persistance, I'll temper your expectations by stating that, while I personally like Haskell, it is only an incremental improvement. The language is nicer, but Perl still wins hand-down when it comes to libraries, finding people to do maintenance, etc. And Haskell does have its own warts (Laziness induced space leaks for instance). So while you may still want to pursue it for intellectual reasons, don't expect that functional programming will make you twice as much money or somesuch.
[reply]

      I actually prefer computer-based material to books for computer related stuff. I can C&p examples rather than type them in. I can search them. And annotate and bookmark without feeling the guilt instilled by my early teachers against marking books.

      I'm still looking for a compiled language that gives me the productivity of Perl, but compiled performance. D comes close, but everytime I look at a cute piece of Haskell (or other FP language) code, I tell myself I really should be able to wrap my brain around (one of) them.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
        I actually prefer computer-based material to books for computer related stuff.
        That's OK as long as you can get high enough quality materials, which it sounds like you are having trouble with.
        I'm still looking for a compiled language that gives me the productivity of Perl, but compiled performance.
        Ever taken a look at Common Lisp? Some people are alergic to parentheses, but if you can get past that and the lack of a nice community (something both Perl and Haskell excel at), it's a pretty nice general purpose language. SBCL is about the fastest of the Free implementations (don't look too hard at the shootout for style tips though, all the programs there have been badly contorted in the effort to get every last drop of speed).
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom