[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Re: Functional programming?
peter lindsay wrote: > To a novice in these matters like myself it looks to me as if:1. Debugging > FP code could be very challenging It usually isn't. Good FP involves breaking down the problem into *simple* functions, often one-liners. Such functions are generally easy to informally "unit test" before use, so you get most bugs out as you write. If you encounter a bug later, well, that must represent a case you didn't test. So, test your low level functions on it, working up until you find the problem. Usually pretty easy. My usual approach to numerical analysis these days is to start in Mathematica using a functional approach because it is so easy to get something working that way, and because the design phase can involve mixtures of symbolic and numerical computation. Then, if need be, I can translate the resulting prototype into pure numerical C very easily. Bugs are few that way, and bugs in the C code can be quickly found by comparing intermediate results in the C with the results from my Mathematica functions. On the other hand, starting in C and finding bugs by stepping through the code in a debugger seems to me an extremely inefficient process. > 2. Although FP looks very concise and fast, there a lot going on that's not > immediately apparent and its not clear [ to me ] how to get full hand-on on > that code. You *never* get "full hand-on on the code". Do you inspect the assembly language generated by your C compiler? Do you know the logical structure of your processor's multiplier? How about its physical structure. Can you compute the electron mobility in silicon from first principles? Are there really "first principles"? In real life, you always draw a line and trust that you understand the effects of the stuff beyond it, without examining the details. Part of professionalism is drawing the line in the right place, but studying a lot so that if your customary place is unilluminating in a particular situation, you can move the line to where it needs to be. Remember that in Mathematica, both procedural and functional codes are partly artful illusions. Mathematica's foundation is structural pattern matching and and replacement. This can have consequences that are unexpected and troublesome or very useful. -- John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ -- The axiomatic method of mathematics is one of the great achievements of our culture. However, it is only a method. Whereas the facts of mathematics once discovered will never change, the method by which these facts are verified has changed many times in the past, and it would be foolhardy to expect that changes will not occur again at some future date. - Gian-Carlo Rota