[Haskell-cafe] FP and Quality

[Benjamin L. Russell]

How about the following papers on real-world Haskell
programming results:

----- text follows immediately after this line -----
Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs. ... An Experiment
in Software Prototyping Productivity (1994), 
by Paul Hudak and Mark P. Jones:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/41732.html

Why Functional Programming Matters (1984), 
by John Hughes:
http://www.md.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html

Why Haskell matters (date unknown) (Web page), 
originally by Sebastian Sylvan:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Why_Haskell_matters
----- text ends immediately before this line -----

The following resource page may also be useful:

Haskell in industry:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry

The following site may also be useful:

Commercial Users of Functional Programming: Functional
Programming As a Means, Not an End:
http://cufp.galois.com/

Barring time constraints, I may post additional
findings later.

Benjamin L. Russell

--- PR Stanley <prstanley at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Thanks, keep the tips coming. I like the ones about
> the type safety 
> and line counts.
> Cheers,
> Paul
> At 23:33 04/02/2008, you wrote:
> >Good luck with this - I'd love to see the outcome.
> >
> >My experience is that FP tends to result in a lot
> less code, so if 
> >there are x
> >bugs per line of code, FP has less bugs per
> complete application.
> >
> >Talking about haskell, the typesystem dissalows
> whole classes of bugs. Things
> >simply do not compile if you stitch the innards
> together in the wrong order
> >(particuarly if you are agressive about using the
> most general types
> >possible). Since this accounts for perhaps 90% of
> where I do things wrong in
> >Java, I get a corresponding decrease in run-time
> bugs in haskell. However,
> >this is somewhat compensated for by the effort
> needed to get haskell programs
> >through the compiler in the first place - debug at
> compile or debug at
> >runtime is the tradeoff here.
> >
> >FP is easier to verify mechanically than imperative
> programming - more of the
> >logic is exposed directly. It's easier to do
> by-case proofs, even if they are
> >by-hand rather than mechanical.
> >
> >However, all of this is annecdotal. Good luck
> collecting real stats, or
> >peer-reviewed annecdotes. You may have luck looking
> at bug-fix times vs
> >number of developers for equivalent FP and Java
> apps/libs. Worth a shot,
> >given that the bug-trackers tend to be public. You
> could probably tie it back
> >to the size of the 'fix' patches. Get some nice
> graphs?
> >
> >Matthew
> >
> >On Monday 04 February 2008, you wrote:
> > > Hi folks
> > > I'm thinking of writing a little essay arguing
> the case for the
> > > advantages of FP for producing quality software.
> Can the list
> > > recommend any papers/articles which I can use as
> sources of my
> > > argument? I have access to the IEEE database too
> although earlier I
> > > couldn't find anything on the subject.
> > > Thanks, Paul
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> > >
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>