Timeline for Functional programming and stateful algorithms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 5, 2013 at 18:56 | vote | accept | bigstones | ||
| Oct 5, 2013 at 15:21 | comment | added | hugomg | @Philipp: functional programming is about making state explicit, not about forbidding it. In fact, tail recursion is a really great tool for implementing those state machines full of gotos. | |
| Oct 5, 2013 at 15:03 | answer | added | hugomg | timeline score: 17 | |
| Oct 5, 2013 at 12:50 | history | edited | bigstones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarifications
|
| Oct 5, 2013 at 3:17 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/386329158533808128 | ||
| Oct 5, 2013 at 2:17 | answer | added | daniel gratzer | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 5, 2013 at 1:32 | comment | added | Ptharien's Flame | @bigstones Perhaps this library will be helpful to you? | |
| Oct 5, 2013 at 1:26 | comment | added | Ptharien's Flame | @Philipp I disagree. An automaton or state machine is sometimes the most natural and accurate way to represent a problem, and functional automata are well studied. | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 23:50 | comment | added | Philipp | A state automata is pretty much the antithesis of functional programming. Functional programming is about solving problems without internal state, while a state automata is all about managing its own state. | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 23:42 | history | edited | bigstones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link to code
|
| Oct 4, 2013 at 23:40 | comment | added | bigstones | @Ptharien'sFlame thank you for your interest! here's the code, there is also a link to the whole project. I'm already confused with what I've done so far, so yes, better not to look into advanced techniques :) | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 23:08 | comment | added | Ptharien's Flame | I, for one, would love to see the code that you've been trying to work with. In the absence of that, my best advice is that Haskell's laziness can often be exploited to not compute things more than once. Look into so-called "tying the knot" and lazy value recursion, although your problem is likely simple enough that the more advanced techniques that take advantage of infinite values and similar things would be overkill, and would probably just confuse you right now. | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 22:29 | history | asked | bigstones | CC BY-SA 3.0 |