[Haskell-cafe] I Need a Better Functional Language!
conal at conal.net
Fri Apr 13 01:36:59 CEST 2012
Agreed. The original note confuses programs (syntax) with functions
(semantics). -- Conal
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Dan Doel <dan.doel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Grigory Sarnitskiy <sargrigory at ya.ru>
> > First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
> set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive
> definition should imply functions that can be constructed, computed. Thus
> these are computable functions that should be of our concern. But
> computable functions in essence are just a synonym for programs.
> This is a flawed premise. The point of working with functions is
> abstraction, and that abstraction is given by extensional equality of
> f = g iff forall x. f x = g x
> So functions are not synonymous with programs or algorithms, they
> correspond to an equivalence class of algorithms that produce the same
> results from the same starting points. If you can access the source of
> functions within the language, this abstraction has been broken.
> And this abstraction is useful, because it allows you to switch freely
> between programs that do the same thing without having to worry that
> someone somewhere is relying on the particular algorithm or source.
> This is the heart of optimization and refactoring and the like.
> There are places for metaprogramming, or perhaps even a type of
> algorithms that can be distinguished by means other than the functions
> they compute. But to say that functions are that type is false, and
> that functions should mean that is, I think, wrong headed.
> -- Dan
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe