Talk:1312: Haskell - Revision history

108.162.221.133 at 05:15, 4 March 2015

2015-03-04T05:15:57Z

103.22.201.145 at 13:01, 22 November 2014

2014-11-22T13:01:30Z

108.162.222.72 at 07:37, 15 March 2014

2014-03-15T07:37:25Z

Jedaï at 00:38, 26 January 2014

2014-01-26T00:38:43Z

Spongebog at 18:22, 5 January 2014

2014-01-05T18:22:52Z

Spongebog at 18:22, 5 January 2014

2014-01-05T18:22:01Z

173.245.54.54 at 09:11, 5 January 2014

2014-01-05T09:11:39Z

Spongebog at 01:59, 4 January 2014

2014-01-04T01:59:29Z

Davidy22 at 22:41, 3 January 2014

2014-01-03T22:41:23Z

108.162.219.202: explain

2014-01-03T22:20:51Z

explain

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 4 March 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:"Expression?" I don't know Haskel, but that's what I would call it in another functional language. --[[User:Rael\|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael\|talk]]) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)		:"Expression?" I don't know Haskel, but that's what I would call it in another functional language. --[[User:Rael\|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael\|talk]]) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
		+	::In my day, we only had methods. (Hint: I use Java) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133\|108.162.221.133]] 05:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::That's a little imprecise, as it doesn't capture the idea of binding a value to a single symbol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.13\|108.162.231.13]] 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)		::That's a little imprecise, as it doesn't capture the idea of binding a value to a single symbol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.13\|108.162.231.13]] 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 "thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.202}}
 ...  I am confused by the description.  Is it possible that someone can put this into "plain language" that a non-programmer and a non-mathematician can understand?  (Go ahead and add "slow" to that description, too, if you so choose...) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]] 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 : Functional programming languages are many -- explaining the difference to a non-programmer can be hard, but typically Lisp as the grandfather and related languages such a Scheme, Haskell [ {{w|List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Functional_languages|list here}} ] are considered {{w|functional programming}} languages, where Java, C, Basic, Fortan etc typically depending on changing state of variables and are called {{w|Procedural_programming|Procedural}} or {{w|Imperative programming}} programming languages -- The best advice for futher explanation is to read the wikipedia links. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::And here's one which is closer to what an Haskeller would write (if he ever needed to compute Fibonacci numbers and couldn't bother using one of the good (non-linear) algorithms) :
   <nowiki>fibs :: [Integer]
-fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)</nowiki>
+fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)</nowiki>
-::::The first two numbers are 1, 1 and you get the rest by adding fibs and tail fibs (fibs offset by 1 element) (zipping them together with +).
+::::The first two numbers are 0, 1 and you get the rest by adding fibs and tail fibs (fibs offset by 1 element) (zipping them together with +).
 ::::The surprising part is that fibs is used in its own computation but that's no problem since each needed element can be computed by the time you need it (we "primed the pump" with the first two elements) and Haskell has lazy evaluation (sometimes named "call-by-need").
 ::::Note that this version only compute each element once, contrary to the previous one (which is horrendous since it does the whole inefficient (O(fib n)) Fibonacci computation for each element).

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
                |otherwise = (fib (n - 1)) + (fib (n - 2)) --And the rest are the sum of the previous two.</nowiki>
 :::--[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 Does anyone have a clue what the Incomplete flag refers to? This seems like a pretty good explanation to me. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 11:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 Example programs written in Haskell are: pandoc, universal markup converter; git-annex, tool to manage large files in git DVCS. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 11:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 : I think the person [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] who updated the incomplete tag to say "'' Add examples of popular Haskell programs''" is boarderline trolling if not full on trolling -- Explanation looks pretty complete to me and I vote to remove the ''incomplete'' tag.  [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 5 January 2014
Line 31:		Line 31:

	... I am confused by the description. Is it possible that someone can put this into "plain language" that a non-programmer and a non-mathematician can understand? (Go ahead and add "slow" to that description, too, if you so choose...) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]] 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)		... I am confused by the description. Is it possible that someone can put this into "plain language" that a non-programmer and a non-mathematician can understand? (Go ahead and add "slow" to that description, too, if you so choose...) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]] 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
−	: Functional programming languages are many -- explaining the difference to a non-programmer can be hard, but typically Lisp as the grandfather and related languages such a Scheme, Haskell [ {{w\|~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Functional_languages\|list here}} ] are considered {{w\|functional programming}} languages, where Java, C, Basic, Fortan etc typically depending on changing state of variables and are called {{w\|Procedural_programming\|Procedural}} or {{w\|Imperative programming}} programming languages -- The best advice for futher explanation is to read the wikipedia links. [[User:Spongebog\|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog\|talk]]) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)	+	: Functional programming languages are many -- explaining the difference to a non-programmer can be hard, but typically Lisp as the grandfather and related languages such a Scheme, Haskell [ {{w\|List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Functional_languages\|list here}} ] are considered {{w\|functional programming}} languages, where Java, C, Basic, Fortan etc typically depending on changing state of variables and are called {{w\|Procedural_programming\|Procedural}} or {{w\|Imperative programming}} programming languages -- The best advice for futher explanation is to read the wikipedia links. [[User:Spongebog\|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog\|talk]]) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 5 January 2014
Line 29:		Line 29:

	"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself. {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.202}}		"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself. {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.202}}
		+
		+	... I am confused by the description. Is it possible that someone can put this into "plain language" that a non-programmer and a non-mathematician can understand? (Go ahead and add "slow" to that description, too, if you so choose...) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]] 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 3 January 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:


−	"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself.	+	"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself. {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.202}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 3 January 2014
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Example programs written in Haskell are: pandoc, universal markup converter; git-annex, tool to manage large files in git DVCS. --[[User:JakubNarebski\|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski\|talk]]) 11:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)		Example programs written in Haskell are: pandoc, universal markup converter; git-annex, tool to manage large files in git DVCS. --[[User:JakubNarebski\|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski\|talk]]) 11:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself.