• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-Eric_Gr=f6nlund?= (5/5) Apr 16 2008 A little shameless self-promotion here, but I'd really love to hear your...
• Jesse Phillips (13/23) Apr 16 2008 I am actually looking forward to the release of D2. The large change in
• Craig Black (6/6) Apr 16 2008 I completely agree with this article. Pure functions may have some util...
• h010 (38/39) Apr 18 2008 Who has a real informed opinion to give? My imperative verbal troll
• Michael Rynn (38/39) Apr 18 2008 Who has a real informed opinion to give? My imperative verbal troll

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-Eric_Gr=f6nlund?= <hasse42g gmail.com> writes:

A little shameless self-promotion here, but I'd really love to hear your
opinions on the subject:

http://www.hans-eric.com/2008/04/16/the-future-of-d-is-functional/
Discussion on Reddit: http://reddit.com/r/programming/info/6fyrd/comments

Regards

Hans-Eric Grönlund

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:05:26 -0400, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:

 A little shameless self-promotion here, but I'd really love to hear your
 opinions on the subject:
 
 http://www.hans-eric.com/2008/04/16/the-future-of-d-is-functional/
 Discussion on Reddit:
 http://reddit.com/r/programming/info/6fyrd/comments
 
 Regards
 
 Hans-Eric Grönlund

I am actually looking forward to the release of D2. The large change in 
direction is definitely one that is likely to drive people away. In fact 
when I was first doing reading on function programming, I had thought 
about the possibility of having a language set, where you would have 
different languages that would each have their own paradigm, but easily 
used within one another.

In any case I do believe that D should go forward as incorporating the 
paradigms into one. Yes the original goal was to make a better C++, and 
it has been getting greater recognition. I think if D wishes to change 
its direction, now is the time to do it.

Of course I always like trying new things, but I would think that is 
common for a lot of users of D <g>.

"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:

I completely agree with this article.  Pure functions may have some utility, 
but the cost of complexity, both in the compiler implementaiton and the 
syntax may not be worth the benefit.  IMO, there are other abstractions that 
support threaded programming that fit better with imperative languages. 
Herb Sutter's idea for active classes comes to mind here.

-Craig 

h010 <newgolo optusnet.com.au> writes:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:05:26 -0400, Hans-Eric Grönlund
<hasse42g gmail.com> wrote:

A little shameless self-promotion here, but I'd really love to hear your
opinions on the subject:

Who has a real  informed opinion to give?  My imperative verbal troll
brain has swirling questions from my functional parallel subconcious,
and I have taken in only the basic concepts of functional (invariant
style) programming, from following the references given so far in this
news group.

what is the vision for functional D?

I would like to understand a broader example of how an application /
library practical example can be coded in functional and imperative
parts.  Little code bits do not mean much out of a practical task
context.

Write the example, then craft the compiler to show it off. Tell us
what has been possible with the functional approach.
 How well functional approach helped in other functional capable
languages?  I presume its the hard part, getting  good productivity of
bug free code with reasonable performance from fallable human
programmers.

How will a largely imperative code application fire off multi-threaded
functional parts and synchonize them  in the larger application
design?. Or are we going to write largely functional programs which
have allowed  bits of imperative code in them?

How much extra complexityin D?  Does it add coding cost (or
simplification), for how much gain?  It must be hard to say  with
something new and with imperfect knowledge of how its going to go. How
much of current D will have to change?  How much futher for D2?

How long before a functional D implementation will be avaiable for
production code?
Will there be functional and imperative styled versions of libraries?

Is there a trade off between single  thread performance loss vs
multithreaded performance gain? As a plodding imperative programmer I
lack experience in the functional programming world. 

If its an extra bonus for D as it is, additional functional
programming choices sound great, as long as imperative capabilities
not lost. If the compiler can do the grunt work for the programmer,if
D has a functional destiny, go for it.   Is this the killer niche for
D?

Michael Rynn

Michael Rynn <michaelrynn optushome.com.au> writes:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:05:26 -0400, Hans-Eric Grönlund
<hasse42g gmail.com> wrote:

A little shameless self-promotion here, but I'd really love to hear your
opinions on the subject:

Who has a real  informed opinion to give?  My imperative verbal troll
brain has swirling questions from my functional parallel subconcious,
and I have taken in only the basic concepts of functional (invariant
style) programming, from following the references given so far in this
news group.

what is the vision for functional D?

I would like to understand a broader example of how an application /
library practical example can be coded in functional and imperative
parts.  Little code bits do not mean much out of a practical task
context.

Write the example, then craft the compiler to show it off. Tell us
what has been possible with the functional approach.
 How well functional approach helped in other functional capable
languages?  I presume its the hard part, getting  good productivity of
bug free code with reasonable performance from fallable human
programmers.

How will a largely imperative code application fire off multi-threaded
functional parts and synchonize them  in the larger application
design?. Or are we going to write largely functional programs which
have allowed  bits of imperative code in them?

How much extra complexityin D?  Does it add coding cost (or
simplification), for how much gain?  It must be hard to say  with
something new and with imperfect knowledge of how its going to go. How
much of current D will have to change?  How much futher for D2?

How long before a functional D implementation will be avaiable for
production code?
Will there be functional and imperative styled versions of libraries?

Is there a trade off between single  thread performance loss vs
multithreaded performance gain? As a plodding imperative programmer I
lack experience in the functional programming world. 

If its an extra bonus for D as it is, additional functional
programming choices sound great, as long as imperative capabilities
not lost. If the compiler can do the grunt work for the programmer,if
D has a functional destiny, go for it.   Is this the killer niche for
D?

Michael Rynn