Search Results

Search found 13859 results on 555 pages for 'non functional'.

Page 13/555 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • How Does The Maybe Monad Relate To The Option Type?

    - by Onorio Catenacci
    I was doing a presentation on F# and was discussing the Option type when someone in the audience asked me if the Option type is F#'s implementation of the maybe monad. I know that's not the case but I did want to ask how the two concepts are related. I mean it seems to me that an option type might be the result of the operation of a maybe monad but I'm not even sure of that. Would someone elucidate the relationship between the maybe monad and the option type in those functional languages which support it?

    Read the article

  • What should I learn from Scheme?

    - by bunglestink
    I was wondering what unique features I can learn from Scheme that would help me become a better programmer? I have a lot experience in mainstream languages, and I am looking to expand my horizons and learn about functional aspects that are missing from other languages. I am familiar with closures from javascript, lambda expressions from C#, and I was wondering what I can focus on that is lacking in other languages? Aside from the Lisp syntax, I feel like what I have seen so far I've already encountered in other languages. What is unique to Scheme/Lisp that will teach me something new?

    Read the article

  • Does FP mess up your OOP skills?

    - by bonomo
    I've been learning functional programming in Haskell and F# for awhile and now when I got some skills it gets harder for me to think in OOP way and program in C# and JavaScript. Everything seems to be ass-backwards there with classes, interfaces, objects and I often stare at the screen trying to think of a better way around without using them. This is something that scares me, because I didn't have problems like that before (not knowing that the same stuff can be done in a different way). So I am concerned as I don't want to loose myself as a OOP developer, because this is what I do for living. Is it a normal thing? Shall I rather stop doing FP? How did you manage to cope with it?

    Read the article

  • what is the purpose of arrows?

    - by Simon
    I am learning functionnal programming with Haskell, and I try to grab concepts by first understanding why do I need them. I would like to know the goal of arrows in functional programming languages. What problem do they solve? I checked http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_arrows and http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~rjmh/afp-arrows.pdf. All I understand is that they are used to describe graphs for computations, and that they allow easier point free style coding. The article assume that point free style is generally easier to understand and to write. This seems quite subjective to me. In another article (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/StephensArrowTutorial#Hangman:_Main_program), a hangman game is implemented, but I cannot see how arrows makes this implementation natural. I could find a lot of papers describing the concept, but nothing about the motivation. What I am missing?

    Read the article

  • Time/resource allocation on a Stylish vs. Functional user interface

    - by jasonk
    When developing applications how much focus/time do you place on an application’s style vs. functionality. Battleship gray apps drive me insane. On the other hand maximizing a business application’s "style" can tax time and financial resources. Applications need to be appealing to resell or meet basic customer expectations, but defining a healthy medium can be difficult. What would you say are reasonable "standards" for allocating develop time/resources should be dedicated to stylizing a business application?

    Read the article

  • Can someone clarify what this Joel On Software quote means?

    - by Bob
    I was reading Joel On Software today and ran across this quote: Without understanding functional programming, you can't invent MapReduce, the algorithm that makes Google so massively scalable. The terms Map and Reduce come from Lisp and functional programming. MapReduce is, in retrospect, obvious to anyone who remembers from their 6.001-equivalent programming class that purely functional programs have no side effects and are thus trivially parallelizable. What does he mean when he says functional programs have no side effects? And how does this make parallelizing trivial?

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of currying?

    - by Mad Scientist
    I just learned about currying, and while I think I understand the concept, I'm not seeing any big advantage in using it. As a trivial example I use a function that adds two values (written in ML). The version without currying would be fun add(x, y) = x + y and would be called as add(3, 5) while the curried version is fun add x y = x + y (* short for val add = fn x => fn y=> x + y *) and would be called as add 3 5 It seems to me to be just syntactic sugar that removes one set of parentheses from defining and calling the function. I've seen currying listed as one of the important features of a functional languages, and I'm a bit underwhelmed by it at the moment. The concept of creating a chain of functions that consume each a single parameter, instead of a function that takes a tuple seems rather complicated to use for a simple change of syntax. Is the slightly simpler syntax the only motivation for currying, or am I missing some other advantages that are not obvious in my very simple example? Is currying just syntactic sugar?

    Read the article

  • Design for XML mapping scenarios between two different systems [on hold]

    - by deepak_prn
    Mapping XML fields between two systems is a mundane routine in integration scenarios. I am trying to make the design documents look better and provide clear understanding to the developers especially when we do not use XSLT or any other IDE such as jDeveloper or eclipse plugins. I want it to be a high level design but at the same time talk in developer's language. So that there is no requirements that slip under the crack. For example, one of the scenarios goes: the store cashier sells an item, the transaction data is sent to Data management system. Now, I am writing a functional design for the scenario which deals with mapping XML fields between our system and the data management system. Question : I was wondering if some one had to deal with mapping XML fields between two systems? (without XSLT being involved) and if you used a table to represent the fields mapping (example is below) or any other visualization tool which does not break the bank ? I am trying to find out if there is a better way to represent XML mapping in your design documents. The widely accepted and used method seems to be using a simple table such as in the picture to illustrate the mapping. I am wondering if there are alternate ways/ tools to represent such as in Altova:

    Read the article

  • Performance of concurrent software on multicore processors

    - by Giorgio
    Recently I have often read that, since the trend is to build processors with multiple cores, it will be increasingly important to have programming languages that support concurrent programming in order to better exploit the parallelism offered by these processors. In this respect, certain programming paradigms or models are considered well-suited for writing robust concurrent software: Functional programming languages, e.g. Haskell, Scala, etc. The actor model: Erlang, but also available for Scala / Java (Akka), C++ (Theron, Casablanca, ...), and other programming languages. My questions: What is the state of the art regarding the development of concurrent applications (e.g. using multi-threading) using the above languages / models? Is this area still being explored or are there well-established practices already? Will it be more complex to program applications with a higher level of concurrency, or is it just a matter of learning new paradigms and practices? How does the performance of highly concurrent software compare to the performance of more traditional software when executed on multiple core processors? For example, has anyone implemented a desktop application using C++ / Theron, or Java / Akka? Was there a boost in performance on a multiple core processor due to higher parallelism?

    Read the article

  • Test Data in a Distributed System

    - by Davin Tryon
    A question that has been vexing me lately has been about how to effectively test (end-to-end) features in a distributed system. Particuarly, how to effectively manage (through time) test data for feature testing. The system in question is a typical SOA setup. The composition is done in JavaScript when call to several REST APIs. Each service is built as an independent block. Each service has some kind of persistent storage (SQL Server in most cases). The main issue at the moment is how to approach test data when testing end-to-end features. Functional end-to-end testing occurs through the UI, and it is therefore necessary for test data to be set up before the test run (this could be manual or automated testing). As is typical in a distributed system, identifiers from one service are used as a link in another service. So, some level of synchronization needs to be present in the data to effectively test. What is the best way to manage and set up this data after a successful deployment to a test environment? For example, is it better to manage this test data inside each service? Or package it together with the testing suite? Does that testing suite exist as a separate project? I'm interested in design guidance about how to store and manage this test data as the application features evolve.

    Read the article

  • Does immutability entirely eliminate the need for locks in multi-processor programming?

    - by GlenPeterson
    Part 1 Clearly Immutability minimizes the need for locks in multi-processor programming, but does it eliminate that need, or are there instances where immutability alone is not enough? It seems to me that you can only defer processing and encapsulate state so long before most programs have to actually DO something. If a program performs actions on multiple processors, something needs to collect and aggregate the results. All this involves multi-process communication before, after, and possibly during some transformations. The start and end state of the machines are different. Can this always be done with no locks just by throwing out each object and creating a new one instead of changing the original (a crude view of immutability)? What cases still require locking? I'm interested in both the theoretical/academic answer and the practical/real-world answer. I know a lot of functional programmers like to talk about "no side effect" but in the "real world" everything has a side effect. Every processor click takes time and electricity and machine resources away from other processes. So I understand that there may be more than one perspective to answer this question from. If immutability is safe, given certain bounds or assumptions, I want to know what the borders of the "safety zone" are exactly. Some examples of possible boundaries: I/O Exceptions/errors Interfaces with programs written in other languages Interfaces with other machines (physical, virtual, or theoretical) Special thanks to @JimmaHoffa for his comment which started this question! Part 2 Multi-processor programming is often used as an optimization technique - to make some code run faster. When is it faster to use locks vs. immutable objects? Given the limits set out in Amdahl's Law, when can you achieve better over-all performance (with or without the garbage collector taken into account) with immutable objects vs. locking mutable ones? Summary I'm combining these two questions into one to try to get at where the bounding box is for Immutability as a solution to threading problems.

    Read the article

  • Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

    - by micahhoover
    During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • Using foldr to append two lists together (Haskell)

    - by Luke Murphy
    I have been given the following question as part of a college assignment. Due to the module being very short, we are using only a subset of Haskell, without any of the syntactic sugar or idiomatic shortcuts....I must write: append xs ys : The list formed by joining the lists xs and ys, in that order append (5:8:3:[]) (4:7:[]) => 5:8:3:4:7:[] I understand the concept of how foldr works, but I am only starting off in Functional programming. I managed to write the following working solution (hidden for the benefit of others in my class...) : However, I just can't for the life of me, explain what the hell is going on!? I wrote it by just fiddling around in the interpreter, for example, the following line : foldr (\x -> \y -> x:y) [] (2:3:4:[]) which returned [2:3:4] , which led me to try, foldr (\x -> \y -> x:y) (2:3:4:[]) (5:6:7:[]) which returned [5,6,7,2,3,4] so I worked it out from there. I came to the correct solution through guess work and a bit of luck... I am working from the following definition of foldr: foldr = \f -> \s -> \xs -> if null xs then s else f (head xs) (foldr f s (tail xs) ) Can someone baby step me through my correct solution? I can't seem to get it....I already have scoured the web, and also read a bunch of SE threads, such as How foldr works

    Read the article

  • Should my WCF webservice return a 500 or 200 http code (soap fault / functional return message)

    - by Tim Mahy
    Hi all, after reading the SOAP specs, it states that a SOAP Fault should return a http 500 errorcode, so when a SoapException is thrown, WCF returns a 500 error code. Now, I'm looking for some best practices to when return a functional soap error message and when to return a SOAP Fault. What would you guys return when a functional error occurred while processing the message because of the input message contains some functional errors, a 500 SOAP Fault or a 200 Soap response containing some error message ?

    Read the article

  • design a model for a system of dependent variables

    - by dbaseman
    I'm dealing with a modeling system (financial) that has dozens of variables. Some of the variables are independent, and function as inputs to the system; most of them are calculated from other variables (independent and calculated) in the system. What I'm looking for is a clean, elegant way to: define the function of each dependent variable in the system trigger a re-calculation, whenever a variable changes, of the variables that depend on it A naive way to do this would be to write a single class that implements INotifyPropertyChanged, and uses a massive case statement that lists out all the variable names x1, x2, ... xn on which others depend, and, whenever a variable xi changes, triggers a recalculation of each of that variable's dependencies. I feel that this naive approach is flawed, and that there must be a cleaner way. I started down the path of defining a CalculationManager<TModel> class, which would be used (in a simple example) something like as follows: public class Model : INotifyPropertyChanged { private CalculationManager<Model> _calculationManager = new CalculationManager<Model>(); // each setter triggers a "PropertyChanged" event public double? Height { get; set; } public double? Weight { get; set; } public double? BMI { get; set; } public Model() { _calculationManager.DefineDependency<double?>( forProperty: model => model.BMI, usingCalculation: (height, weight) => weight / Math.Pow(height, 2), withInputs: model => model.Height, model.Weight); } // INotifyPropertyChanged implementation here } I won't reproduce CalculationManager<TModel> here, but the basic idea is that it sets up a dependency map, listens for PropertyChanged events, and updates dependent properties as needed. I still feel that I'm missing something major here, and that this isn't the right approach: the (mis)use of INotifyPropertyChanged seems to me like a code smell the withInputs parameter is defined as params Expression<Func<TModel, T>>[] args, which means that the argument list of usingCalculation is not checked at compile time the argument list (weight, height) is redundantly defined in both usingCalculation and withInputs I am sure that this kind of system of dependent variables must be common in computational mathematics, physics, finance, and other fields. Does someone know of an established set of ideas that deal with what I'm grasping at here? Would this be a suitable application for a functional language like F#? Edit More context: The model currently exists in an Excel spreadsheet, and is being migrated to a C# application. It is run on-demand, and the variables can be modified by the user from the application's UI. Its purpose is to retrieve variables that the business is interested in, given current inputs from the markets, and model parameters set by the business.

    Read the article

  • Is return-type-(only)-polymorphism in Haskell a good thing?

    - by dainichi
    One thing that I've never quite come to terms with in Haskell is how you can have polymorphic constants and functions whose return type cannot be determined by their input type, like class Foo a where foo::Int -> a Some of the reasons that I do not like this: Referential transparency: "In Haskell, given the same input, a function will always return the same output", but is that really true? read "3" return 3 when used in an Int context, but throws an error when used in a, say, (Int,Int) context. Yes, you can argue that read is also taking a type parameter, but the implicitness of the type parameter makes it lose some of its beauty in my opinion. Monomorphism restriction: One of the most annoying things about Haskell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason for the MR is that computation that looks shared might not be because the type parameter is implicit. Type defaulting: Again one of the most annoying things about Haskell. Happens e.g. if you pass the result of functions polymorphic in their output to functions polymorphic in their input. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would not be necessary without functions whose return type cannot be determined by their input type (and polymorphic constants). So my question is (running the risk of being stamped as a "discussion quesion"): Would it be possible to create a Haskell-like language where the type checker disallows these kinds of definitions? If so, what would be the benefits/disadvantages of that restriction? I can see some immediate problems: If, say, 2 only had the type Integer, 2/3 wouldn't type check anymore with the current definition of /. But in this case, I think type classes with functional dependencies could come to the rescue (yes, I know that this is an extension). Furthermore, I think it is a lot more intuitive to have functions that can take different input types, than to have functions that are restricted in their input types, but we just pass polymorphic values to them. The typing of values like [] and Nothing seems to me like a tougher nut to crack. I haven't thought of a good way to handle them. I doubt I am the first person to have had thoughts like these. Does anybody have links to good discussions about this Haskell design decision and the pros/cons of it?

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with a mixed languages. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options?

    Read the article

  • Non-blocking ORM issues

    - by Nikolay Fominyh
    Once I had question on SO, and found that there are no non-blocking ORMs for my favorite framework. I mean ORM with callback support for asynchronous retrieval. The ORM would be supplied with a callback or some such to "activate" when data has been received. Otherwise ORM needs to be split of in a separate thread to guarantee UI responsiveness. I want to create one, but I have some questions that blocking me from starting development: What issues we can meet when developing ORM? Does word "non-blocking" before word "ORM" will dramatically increase complexity of ORM? Why there are not much non-blocking ORMs around? Update: It looks, that I have to improve my question. We have solutions that already allows us to receive data in non-blocking way. And I believe that not all companies that use such solutions - using raw SQL. We want to create more generic solution, that we can reuse in future projects. What difficulties we can meet?

    Read the article

  • Non-English-based programming languages

    - by Jaime Soto
    The University of Antioquia in Colombia teaches its introductory programming courses in Lexico, a Spanish-based, object-oriented .NET language. The intent is to teach programming concepts in the students' native language before introducing English-based mainstream languages. There are many other Non-English-based programming languages and there is even a related question in Stack Overflow. I have several questions regarding these languages: Has anyone on this site learned to program using a non-English-based language? If so, how difficult was the transition to the first English-based language? Is there any research-based evidence that non-English speakers learn programming faster/better using languages with keywords in their native language instead of English-based languages?

    Read the article

  • Teaching programming to a non-CS graduate

    - by Shahzada
    I have a couple of friends interested in computer programming, but they're non-CS graduates; some of them have very little experience in software testing field (some of them took some basic software testing courses). I am going to be working with them on teaching basic computer programming, and computer science fundamentals (data structures etc). My questions are; What language should I start with? What are essential computer science topics that I should cover before jumping them into computer programming? What readings can I incorporate to make the topic interesting and non-overwhelming? If we want to spend a year on it, what topics should take priority and must be covered in 12 months? Again, these are non computer science folks, and I want to keep the learning as much fun as possible. Thanks everyone.

    Read the article

  • Are there any non-english programming languages? [closed]

    - by samarudge
    Possible Duplicate: Non-English-based programming languages Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I'm going to anyway. Without fail, every programming language I've ever seen, used or heard of has it's keywords based around English. if, else, while, for, query, foreach, image, path, extension, the list goes on, are all based around English words. Are there any languages, or ports of languages that base their core keywords based on non-english words to lower the wall for non-english speaking programmers? This is mostly for intrest (English is my first language so it's no problem for me). Are these languages popular locally (I.E. might a software development house in Germany use a programming language based in German over one based in English).

    Read the article

  • A more concise example that illustrates that type inference can be very costly?

    - by mrrusof
    It was brought to my attention that the cost of type inference in a functional language like OCaml can be very high. The claim is that there is a sequence of expressions such that for each expression the length of the corresponding type is exponential on the length of the expression. I devised the sequence below. My question is: do you know of a sequence with more concise expressions that achieves the same types? # fun a -> a;; - : 'a -> 'a = <fun> # fun b a -> b a;; - : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'b = <fun> # fun c b a -> c b (b a);; - : (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'c = <fun> # fun d c b a -> d c b (c b (b a));; - : ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'd = <fun> # fun e d c b a -> e d c b (d c b (c b (b a)));; - : (((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'e = <fun> # fun f e d c b a -> f e d c b (e d c b (d c b (c b (b a))));; - : ((((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'e -> 'f) -> (((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'f = <fun>

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >