conal at conal.net
Wed Nov 21 20:54:16 EST 2007
On Nov 21, 2007 3:49 AM, Laurent Deniau <laurent.deniau at cern.ch> wrote:
> Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> > Conal Elliott wrote:
> >> Moreover, functional programming makes it easy to have much more state
> >> than imperative programming, namely state over *continuous* time. The
> >> temporally discrete time imposed by the imperative model is pretty
> >> puny in comparison. Continuous (or "resolution-independent") time has
> >> the same advantages as continuous space: resource-adaptive, scalable,
> >> transformable.
> > Yes, that's true, but isn't that also the problem with FRP? I mean, most
> > of the papers I'm reading about (A)FRP indicate that no matter how nice
> > it is to have the continuous time model
> I agree with Conal, it's not a continuous time model but a
> resolution-independent time model.
What do mean by resolution-independent vs continuous?
I meant them more-or-less synonymously. Semantically, there's no notion of
resolution. When it's time to introduce a resolution for discrete
rendering, there's no resolution imposed by the model.
> The reason it that Arrows (like
> Monads) encapsulate the sequence of transitions. Unless the time is a
> parameter of the transition, it is independent of the time (resolution),
> but still captures its ordered nature.
I'm confused again. I don't think of Arrow as implying transitions at all.
> > to get fine grained control
> > over execution times and resources, one needs to fall back to the
> > discrete delta-time approach?
> If you need synchronization, yes.
Why? What about synchronization implies discretness in the model?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe