1. Hughes suggests that FP provides two new kinds of “glue”, one to do
with “gluing functions together” and the other to do with “glueing
programs together”. How convincing do you find his arguments?
Copyright By PowCoder代写 加微信 powcoder
Especially, how convincing are they with respect to non functional
programming languages. Are there equivalent “glue”-like constructs in
non-functional languages you are familiar with?
2. Hughes suggests that FP provides two new kinds of “glue”, one to do
with “glueing functions together” and the other to do with “glueing
programs together”. If Hughes is right about modularity and
composition why was the syntax FP demonstrated not stolen by other
languages? Was there something special or is it just an accident of
programming language history (Hughes observes: “If [doing something]
brought such enormous benefits then FORTRAN programmers would
have been doing it for twenty years.”?
3. The examples in this paper are written in Miranda, a functional
language devised by in 1985. The syntax is (not
accidentally!) similar to Haskell, but it has differences too. Thinking just
about it’s utility as a tool to communicate with non functional
programmers, how would you compare it to Haskell?
4. Hughes ends the paper by arguing that lazy evaluation needs to be a
core feature of functional programming languages; this was by no
means a settled question in 1985 (and arguably still isn’t). Was his
argument convincing to you, and why?
程序代写 CS代考 加微信: powcoder QQ: 1823890830 Email: powcoder@163.com