[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Functional programming?
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2008, at 08:26, David Bailey wrote:
>
>> I feel there is another thing to say regarding FP. The fact that FP
>> performs so well in Mathematica is, in my opinion, something of a
>> fluke.
>> The real reason is that because Mathematica is such a high level
>> language, absolutely every step incurs considerable overhead, that is
>> not present in languages such as Fortran or Java. Because FP
>> provides a
>> way to do a lot in one step, it reduces this overhead.
>
> I don't think it is a fluke, but simply a consequence of the fact that
> Mathematica is or originated as a Computer Algebra System, and there
> is no doubt that functional programming is the most efficient and
> natural way to program in a CAS. I don't think there is any point even
> arguing about this so I just note that the first (at least I think it
> is the first) genuine CAS system did not even have its own programing
> language but used LISP (the paradigm of all functional languages),
> and one of Mathematica's main rivals, which uses a procedural
> programming language (in my opinion a pretty awful one), had
> functional constructs belatedly added to it.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>
>
I agree, what I meant was that FP's advantage over PP only exists in
environments such as Mathematica. An FP extension to Java (say) would be
no faster than an equivalent regular Java program - because both would
be ultimately translated into the same machine instructions. BTW, modern
Java is fully compiled just prior to execution.
I think the mixture of FP and PP constructs in Mathematica is ideal.
David Bailey
http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk
Prev by Date:
**Re: imagesize to full width of current screen**
Next by Date:
**Re: Problem with replacement rules**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Functional programming?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Functional programming?**
| |