It always astounds me how people can completely blend out one major thing: consciousness
Is it possible that machines develop consciousness like ours? THAT is the question that needs to be answered and which is far more interesting than "from a technological point of view only"
- When you change a function b so that it depends on the number of times a has been called, then this is a pretty deep change; but yes, it should be simple to do in situations like logging etc.
- Single-assignment really has NOTHING to do with purely functional programming; see my article "Purely Functional Structured Programming" or my (purely functional) programming language Babel-17 (www.babel-17.com)
- Random is an interesting operation; it is not purely-functional, but can be considered side-effect free; so it is not really imperative, either (although implementations via seed are)
I wonder how this constraint approach fits together with classic design principles. For example, an often used design principle is that of grid systems. Does the constraint approach somehow naturally include the grid systems approach?
I think this falls into the category "As simple as possible, but not simpler". Doing abstraction right is a very hard thing indeed and requires the right training and education. None of the creators of the current frameworks have had those, and therefore their creations may be brilliant, but flawed. When an abstraction is done right, you won't feel any pressing need to go beyond it. When it is not done right, you are happy that at least it is "leaky", but calling this leakiness a feature just misses the point in the first place.
I am a non-native speaker, too, I got 10800. I guess when reading books, I should quit my habit I developed lately of skipping over those words I don't know :-)
Oh Jesus. I did my 2 years of C++ development over 10 years ago, but I don't even mention it in my CV, because I am not going to use the mess that is C++ ever again. If I need something low-level, I will use Objective-C.
Thank you for your answer (I wasn't really expecting any). I suspected that there must be more to SEO than meets the (ignorant) eye if it does indeed instill such love :-)
Nope, it isn't. Yes, Babel-17 is nowhere near to be used for UI on all platforms. Yet. These days people underestimate the power of languages, saying "it's all about libraries". Libraries are nice, but you can get better libraries with better languages.
Yes, and you get my respect for that. It is probably also the smartest solution to try to use Javascript for that purpose, because it has such a large following. But expect not so smart people to come up with a multi-device solution that isn't based on Javascript :-)
I love this part of the article:
"In 2010, Nordmark paid $25,000 for a patent on a new online digital used music and book website that Veith was pitching, dubbed UsedTunes.com. The site exists but isn't operational."
Message passing does require a sender, a receiver, and a message. You can have those in purely functional programming.
No identity needed. But if you really want one, you can have it: Two objects are identical, if they react to all messages in the same way. You can also explicitly define equality ==, and then say that a and b are identical if a == b.