arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/λ/ - programming

structure and interpretation of computer programs.

formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1506617977809.bmp (808.06 KB, 525x525, mccarthy_glitch4.bmp)


Welcome all, to the /lambda/ FP general! This thread serves as both a discussion of more abstract concepts of Functional design as well as a place to discuss/collaborate/bitch about specific FP languages and projects.

In brief,

In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm—a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs—that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids changing-state and mutable data. (Wiki article on FP) (SICP - an absolute must-read for anyone looking at FP) (Excellent writeup on what makes FP awesome) (Learn FP from the creator of Scala, free!)

>>>/λ/737 (Scala thread with resources)


Is SICP really an absolute must read? Surely people can learn some practical FP without it.


It's more of an absolute must-read for anyone getting into Scheme or any Lisp in general. FP? Not so much.


It's a must read for everyone who wants to program.


It's a Must Read for anyone who wants to read SICP


What do you guys think about joy as a functional language ?

Being stack based it seems easier to reason about and passing around data is easier because it can just be left on the stack, you don't need to use functions to modify your functions to accept more arguments.


I think being stack based makes it easier to draw out and reason about, but harder to reason about when looking at just the code.


Since this is a general I guess it's okay to ask here: does anyone here know of a good resource about Ocaml's modules and maybe something on how to translate between SML and Ocaml modules?


Is there a german translation of sicp.


Yes, Struktur und Interpretation von Computerprogrammen. Although I can't find it online.


Scratch that, it's actually one libgen. But it's too big to post here.


For some of the more interesting resources on type level programming theres:

And interesting functional programming in general:

It's not really needed at all for FP and one would probably be better off with a Haskell book (since they tend to be easier) or one of the many on ((O)ca)ML.

It's effectively point-free-or-die style which tends to be rather difficult to parse without type signatures.


Is Ocaml worth for scientific programming? I need to manipulate texts of ~50000 words, wrote on Fortran (gfortran) and I was shocked seeing that it's slower than the same code on Perl (10'' vs <1') and I'm willing to try some FP.
And what about SML with MLton? What's faster for number crunching and text arrays?


algorithms tell you what to do
calculus tells you what you're allowed to do


I have this book on the topic although I don't know if anyone actually uses OCaml for this kind of work.


I wanted to post the book but Arisuchan swallowed it :(
So here's OCaml for Scientists:



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]