[Haskell-cafe] I read somewhere that for 90% of a wide class of computing problems, you only need 10% of the source code in Haskell, that you would in an imperative language.

[Richard O'Keefe]

On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> It might be a better argument to say that human thinking is  
> fundamentally sequential; parallel computers have been around for a  
> little while now...

You've never been talking on the phone while stirring a pot with one  
hand
and wiping down a child with the other?

You've never read (part of) a book while watching a TV program and  
been able
to summarize both afterwards?

You've never played the piano while talking about something else?

Human *verbalisation* is fundamental, human *thinking* is not.

(It's not unboundedly parallel either.)