On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > There were some interesting conversations ...
> Joel
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> There were some interesting conversations ...
>> Joel
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Austin Functional Programmers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers (Chance,
et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group.
If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference? The groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but would anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up from somewhere.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers (Chance, > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group. > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > Joel
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
We used to meet at Spider House, but Genuine Joe is actually better
for me, since I'm coming from the north (near Round Rock).
Weeknights at or after 6:30 are usually fine for me. What format do
these meetings usually take? Someone (everyone?) picks a paper and
gives an N minute presentation?
On Jul 11, 3:31 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
> I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference? The
> groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but would
> anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
> I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up from
> somewhere.
> Thoughts?
> Joel
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers (Chance,
> > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group.
> > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> > On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > > Joel
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
I think the parking at Spider House makes it tricky for a lot of people. Another possibility would be Monkey Nest Coffee on Burnet, which is nice but a little more expensive that Joe's. It has a meeting room and decent parking, and is just up from a Torchy's tacos ;-)
I think one of the issues with the previous meetings was that they tended towards the chaotic. I like your suggestion of picking a topic and doing a short presentation on it.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > We used to meet at Spider House, but Genuine Joe is actually better > for me, since I'm coming from the north (near Round Rock).
> Weeknights at or after 6:30 are usually fine for me. What format do > these meetings usually take? Someone (everyone?) picks a paper and > gives an N minute presentation?
> On Jul 11, 3:31 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
> > I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference? The > > groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but would > > anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
> > I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up from > > somewhere.
> > Thoughts?
> > Joel
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers (Chance, > > > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group. > > > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> > > On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > > > Joel
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
I jumped to the conclusion of presentations at the mention of finding
a projector. I don't mind giving a talk on something, but it would
help to know what interests and backgrounds people have...
"functional programmers" is getting to be a big tent. So I'll
probably just observe round one unless you want to work with me to
pick a topic and appropriate level of detail.
Matt
On Jul 11, 5:56 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I think the parking at Spider House makes it tricky for a lot of people.
> Another possibility would be Monkey Nest Coffee on Burnet, which is nice but
> a little more expensive that Joe's. It has a meeting room and decent
> parking, and is just up from a Torchy's tacos ;-)
> I think one of the issues with the previous meetings was that they tended
> towards the chaotic. I like your suggestion of picking a topic and doing a
> short presentation on it.
> Anyone else?
> Joel
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We used to meet at Spider House, but Genuine Joe is actually better
> > for me, since I'm coming from the north (near Round Rock).
> > Weeknights at or after 6:30 are usually fine for me. What format do
> > these meetings usually take? Someone (everyone?) picks a paper and
> > gives an N minute presentation?
> > On Jul 11, 3:31 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
> > > I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference? The
> > > groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but would
> > > anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
> > > I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up from
> > > somewhere.
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Joel
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers (Chance,
> > > > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group.
> > > > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> > > > On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > > > > Joel
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joel,
> I jumped to the conclusion of presentations at the mention of finding > a projector. I don't mind giving a talk on something, but it would > help to know what interests and backgrounds people have... > "functional programmers" is getting to be a big tent. So I'll > probably just observe round one unless you want to work with me to > pick a topic and appropriate level of detail.
> Matt
> On Jul 11, 5:56 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi Matt
> > I think the parking at Spider House makes it tricky for a lot of people. > > Another possibility would be Monkey Nest Coffee on Burnet, which is nice > but > > a little more expensive that Joe's. It has a meeting room and decent > > parking, and is just up from a Torchy's tacos ;-)
> > I think one of the issues with the previous meetings was that they tended > > towards the chaotic. I like your suggestion of picking a topic and doing > a > > short presentation on it.
> > Anyone else?
> > Joel
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > We used to meet at Spider House, but Genuine Joe is actually better > > > for me, since I'm coming from the north (near Round Rock).
> > > Weeknights at or after 6:30 are usually fine for me. What format do > > > these meetings usually take? Someone (everyone?) picks a paper and > > > gives an N minute presentation?
> > > On Jul 11, 3:31 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
> > > > I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference? > The > > > > groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but > would > > > > anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
> > > > I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up > from > > > > somewhere.
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Joel
> > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers > (Chance, > > > > > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group. > > > > > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> > > > > On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > > > > > Joel
> > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> We had a bunch of Scala folks (some who do it commercially), I'm more
> hobbyist on Haskell.
> We had some talks about parsers and functional data structures, and it seems
> like there is the usual issue of pure vs. impure functional programming.
> I think people are mostly interested in everything - after all, we're
> programmers ;-)
> Joel
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Joel,
> > I jumped to the conclusion of presentations at the mention of finding
> > a projector. I don't mind giving a talk on something, but it would
> > help to know what interests and backgrounds people have...
> > "functional programmers" is getting to be a big tent. So I'll
> > probably just observe round one unless you want to work with me to
> > pick a topic and appropriate level of detail.
> > Matt
> > On Jul 11, 5:56 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Matt
> > > I think the parking at Spider House makes it tricky for a lot of people.
> > > Another possibility would be Monkey Nest Coffee on Burnet, which is nice
> > but
> > > a little more expensive that Joe's. It has a meeting room and decent
> > > parking, and is just up from a Torchy's tacos ;-)
> > > I think one of the issues with the previous meetings was that they tended
> > > towards the chaotic. I like your suggestion of picking a topic and doing
> > a
> > > short presentation on it.
> > > Anyone else?
> > > Joel
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > We used to meet at Spider House, but Genuine Joe is actually better
> > > > for me, since I'm coming from the north (near Round Rock).
> > > > Weeknights at or after 6:30 are usually fine for me. What format do
> > > > these meetings usually take? Someone (everyone?) picks a paper and
> > > > gives an N minute presentation?
> > > > On Jul 11, 3:31 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Ok, I think that is sufficient interest for us to try to meetup.
> > > > > I know we met at Genuine Joe before, does anyone have a preference?
> > The
> > > > > groups still seems to have the weekly meetings in the calendar, but
> > would
> > > > > anyone prefer an alternate time? Weeknights would be better for me.
> > > > > I don't have a projector so we'd need to scrounge one of those up
> > from
> > > > > somewhere.
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > Joel
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I met up with the first wave of Austin functional programmers
> > (Chance,
> > > > > > et al) a few times, but don't think I've met any in this new group.
> > > > > > If I'm free when you meet, I'll probably come.
> > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:02 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > There were some interesting conversations ...
> > > > > > > Joel
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > Groups
> > > > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > > > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
I've been on the mailing list for a while, and never have made one of the meetings due to conflicts. Week nights work better for me too. I'm mostly interested in Haskell, but enjoy all programming languages / compilers / algorithms related topics.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Sean Duckett <sduck...@gmail.com> wrote: > I keep falling-off due to scheduling conflicts on the weekends, but I'll > show up to ask (hopefully good) questions if we can schedule a weeknight.
> -- > Sean
> On 07/07/11 at 03:02pm, Joel Crisp wrote: >> There were some interesting conversations ...
>> Joel
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
Hey - sorry for the delay! Joel is right, that email started
bouncing and this is the first I've heard of it (which is why I also
am just catching up to the posts).
I am going to be out of pocket this evening (trying to get a talk
proposal out the door) but will plan to open up the calendar to
another admin (Joel - would you volunteer?).
Also, I have an office at this point and should have access to a
projector if we want to use my space on a weekend/weeknight as long as
it is outside of general business hours. There is a small kitchen
with a fridge for drinks and such.
Thoughts?
Chance
On Jul 12, 12:36 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Chance <cha...@austindatalab.com> wrote: > Hey - sorry for the delay! Joel is right, that email started > bouncing and this is the first I've heard of it (which is why I also > am just catching up to the posts).
> I am going to be out of pocket this evening (trying to get a talk > proposal out the door) but will plan to open up the calendar to > another admin (Joel - would you volunteer?).
> Also, I have an office at this point and should have access to a > projector if we want to use my space on a weekend/weeknight as long as > it is outside of general business hours. There is a small kitchen > with a fridge for drinks and such.
> Thoughts? > Chance
> On Jul 12, 12:36 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi all
> > I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the > calendar > > but his email address is bouncing.
> > Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail > them > > to me not the list!
> > Thanks
> > Joel
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> Thanks for your response! Yes, I'd be happy to admin the calendar for now if
> no-one objects.
> It does seem as if the consensus is after working hours during the week, due
> to other commitments people have at the weekend.
> I suggest Wednesday if the majority of people can make it. I'm not sure an
> office would work - we may want a more casual environment with public wifi?
> Thoughts?
> Joel
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Chance <cha...@austindatalab.com> wrote:
> > Hey - sorry for the delay! Joel is right, that email started
> > bouncing and this is the first I've heard of it (which is why I also
> > am just catching up to the posts).
> > I am going to be out of pocket this evening (trying to get a talk
> > proposal out the door) but will plan to open up the calendar to
> > another admin (Joel - would you volunteer?).
> > Also, I have an office at this point and should have access to a
> > projector if we want to use my space on a weekend/weeknight as long as
> > it is outside of general business hours. There is a small kitchen
> > with a fridge for drinks and such.
> > Thoughts?
> > Chance
> > On Jul 12, 12:36 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > > I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the
> > calendar
> > > but his email address is bouncing.
> > > Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail
> > them
> > > to me not the list!
> > > Thanks
> > > Joel
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
Excerpts from Joel Crisp's message of 2011-07-12 12:36:22 -0500:
> I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the calendar > but his email address is bouncing.
> Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail them > to me not the list!
Hi everyone,
Admin Stuff -----------
This thread reached a critical mass and I shouldn't continue to put off a reply. I was involved in the previous reboot of this meetup, and have probably all the access anyone can want to the Google Apps site, which has the calendar.
I /just/ tried to set up the Calendar to allow members of this mailing list write access to the calendar using the sneaky "austin-fp@googlegroups.com" as a member. That works on some other Google products like Google Code. Let's see if that works for the calendar. Give it a shot and reply back.
Also, I thought I set it up the AFP Google Sites page the same way, so everyone should be able to edit that page too.
The only rub is that you need to have subscribed to this mailing list with the same Gmail email address that you use to authenticate with to get to Google Calendar and Google Site.
I know it's a little confusing. Just reply back if you're still stuck.
Reading I'm Interested In -------------------------
Have you guys been keeping up with Robert Harper's blog [1]? I'm enjoying his write-ups and trying not to get caught up in some of his inflammatory assertions. I get/agree with his position on object-orientation. But I'm not sure where I stand with respect to his aversion to lazy evaluation.
Also, stumbled onto a recent 70-page PDF by Simon Marlow titled "Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell" [2]. I really haven't touched parallel programming in Haskell, so it would be great of the group had some interest in this. The write-up is much more pragmatic than academic, so I could see us playing around with some of the example code code in a REPL.
I have a projector if you guys are interested in that. I'm more or less fine with most of the suggested times/locations for a meetup, but won't know for sure until there's a proposed date. Mondays can be bad for me.
I actually started using the Functional Java library here at work because some of our algorithms really benefited from persistent immutable data structures. I didn't want to code them from scratch, wasn't happy with some of the other half-baked implementations out there, and wasn't ready to fight the introduction of Scala or Clojure just yet. Functional Java is really just a tidy proof-of-concept. It works, is more or less cleanly implemented, but is far from full-featured.
It feels weird to have witnessed this much of the functional style in pure Java. But it's actually worked out pretty well, because the mutable version of the algorithm would have had some tedious correctness hurdles with observers and deep copies.
I think the strongest observation I had was that the binding of methods to objects is extremely premature. So I ended up with a barrage of first class static variants of the methods I'd put on objects just for the flexibility of map, join, and compose.
Still, though, it's pretty ghetto. I call this "the assembly language of functional programming." But it was kind of worth it; I ended up with a parser combinator to define a kind of regex grammar to search one of our trees for subtrees. The embedded DSL in Java turned out pretty clean, and it gives our team some needed flexibility.
That said, my opinion is that I really should be using Scala. The code I've laid down illustrates what this style looks like in Java. I think my next step is to do the same in Scala, to demonstrate the improvements (syntax, performance, etc.). But also, there will be the build/integration/social problems too, so I'll have to see how those compare to the gains.
Wednesday's my soccer night, but I'm good for almost any other night during the weekdays. We were doing Genuine Joe's before, which I thought was a good venue.
> Wednesday's are fine with me. An office has pros and cons. It's hard > for me to say more than that without seeing how these meetings play > out.
> On Jul 12, 2:10 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi Chance
>> Thanks for your response! Yes, I'd be happy to admin the calendar for now if >> no-one objects.
>> It does seem as if the consensus is after working hours during the week, due >> to other commitments people have at the weekend.
>> I suggest Wednesday if the majority of people can make it. I'm not sure an >> office would work - we may want a more casual environment with public wifi?
>> Thoughts?
>> Joel
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Chance <cha...@austindatalab.com> wrote: >>> Hey - sorry for the delay! Joel is right, that email started >>> bouncing and this is the first I've heard of it (which is why I also >>> am just catching up to the posts).
>>> I am going to be out of pocket this evening (trying to get a talk >>> proposal out the door) but will plan to open up the calendar to >>> another admin (Joel - would you volunteer?).
>>> Also, I have an office at this point and should have access to a >>> projector if we want to use my space on a weekend/weeknight as long as >>> it is outside of general business hours. There is a small kitchen >>> with a fridge for drinks and such.
>>> Thoughts? >>> Chance
>>> On Jul 12, 12:36 pm, Joel Crisp <joel.a.cr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi all
>>>> I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the >>> calendar >>>> but his email address is bouncing.
>>>> Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail >>> them >>>> to me not the list!
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Joel
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Austin Functional Programmers" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
Ah, the 'existential type' blog. I've read some of those. Can you
link to the one about Object Orientation?
I mostly agree with him about laziness, but the important question is
what features you replace it with. If you just made Haskell strict
without any other modifications, you would make it worse, I think. I
haven't tried Disciple, though.
On Jul 12, 2:36 pm, "Sukant Hajra" <w6fbrjf...@snkmail.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Joel Crisp's message of 2011-07-12 12:36:22 -0500:
> > I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the calendar
> > but his email address is bouncing.
> > Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail them
> > to me not the list!
> Hi everyone,
> Admin Stuff
> -----------
> This thread reached a critical mass and I shouldn't continue to put off a
> reply. I was involved in the previous reboot of this meetup, and have probably
> all the access anyone can want to the Google Apps site, which has the calendar.
> I /just/ tried to set up the Calendar to allow members of this mailing list
> write access to the calendar using the sneaky "austin-fp@googlegroups.com" as a
> member. That works on some other Google products like Google Code. Let's see
> if that works for the calendar. Give it a shot and reply back.
> Also, I thought I set it up the AFP Google Sites page the same way, so everyone
> should be able to edit that page too.
> The only rub is that you need to have subscribed to this mailing list with the
> same Gmail email address that you use to authenticate with to get to Google
> Calendar and Google Site.
> I know it's a little confusing. Just reply back if you're still stuck.
> Reading I'm Interested In
> -------------------------
> Have you guys been keeping up with Robert Harper's blog [1]? I'm enjoying his
> write-ups and trying not to get caught up in some of his inflammatory
> assertions. I get/agree with his position on object-orientation. But I'm not
> sure where I stand with respect to his aversion to lazy evaluation.
> Also, stumbled onto a recent 70-page PDF by Simon Marlow titled "Parallel and
> Concurrent Programming in Haskell" [2]. I really haven't touched parallel
> programming in Haskell, so it would be great of the group had some interest in
> this. The write-up is much more pragmatic than academic, so I could see us
> playing around with some of the example code code in a REPL.
> I have a projector if you guys are interested in that. I'm more or less fine
> with most of the suggested times/locations for a meetup, but won't know for
> sure until there's a proposed date. Mondays can be bad for me.
> I actually started using the Functional Java library here at work because some
> of our algorithms really benefited from persistent immutable data structures.
> I didn't want to code them from scratch, wasn't happy with some of the other
> half-baked implementations out there, and wasn't ready to fight the
> introduction of Scala or Clojure just yet. Functional Java is really just a
> tidy proof-of-concept. It works, is more or less cleanly implemented, but is
> far from full-featured.
> It feels weird to have witnessed this much of the functional style in pure
> Java. But it's actually worked out pretty well, because the mutable version of
> the algorithm would have had some tedious correctness hurdles with observers
> and deep copies.
> I think the strongest observation I had was that the binding of methods to
> objects is extremely premature. So I ended up with a barrage of first class
> static variants of the methods I'd put on objects just for the flexibility of
> map, join, and compose.
> Still, though, it's pretty ghetto. I call this "the assembly language of
> functional programming." But it was kind of worth it; I ended up with a parser
> combinator to define a kind of regex grammar to search one of our trees for
> subtrees. The embedded DSL in Java turned out pretty clean, and it gives our
> team some needed flexibility.
> That said, my opinion is that I really should be using Scala. The code I've
> laid down illustrates what this style looks like in Java. I think my next step
> is to do the same in Scala, to demonstrate the improvements (syntax,
> performance, etc.). But also, there will be the build/integration/social
> problems too, so I'll have to see how those compare to the gains.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, the 'existential type' blog. I've read some of those. Can you > link to the one about Object Orientation?
> I mostly agree with him about laziness, but the important question is > what features you replace it with. If you just made Haskell strict > without any other modifications, you would make it worse, I think. I > haven't tried Disciple, though.
> On Jul 12, 2:36 pm, "Sukant Hajra" <w6fbrjf...@snkmail.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Joel Crisp's message of 2011-07-12 12:36:22 -0500:
> > > I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the > calendar > > > but his email address is bouncing.
> > > Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail > them > > > to me not the list!
> > Hi everyone,
> > Admin Stuff > > -----------
> > This thread reached a critical mass and I shouldn't continue to put off a > > reply. I was involved in the previous reboot of this meetup, and have > probably > > all the access anyone can want to the Google Apps site, which has the > calendar.
> > I /just/ tried to set up the Calendar to allow members of this mailing > list > > write access to the calendar using the sneaky " > austin-fp@googlegroups.com" as a > > member. That works on some other Google products like Google Code. > Let's see > > if that works for the calendar. Give it a shot and reply back.
> > Also, I thought I set it up the AFP Google Sites page the same way, so > everyone > > should be able to edit that page too.
> > The only rub is that you need to have subscribed to this mailing list > with the > > same Gmail email address that you use to authenticate with to get to > Google > > Calendar and Google Site.
> > I know it's a little confusing. Just reply back if you're still stuck.
> > Reading I'm Interested In > > -------------------------
> > Have you guys been keeping up with Robert Harper's blog [1]? I'm > enjoying his > > write-ups and trying not to get caught up in some of his inflammatory > > assertions. I get/agree with his position on object-orientation. But > I'm not > > sure where I stand with respect to his aversion to lazy evaluation.
> > Also, stumbled onto a recent 70-page PDF by Simon Marlow titled "Parallel > and > > Concurrent Programming in Haskell" [2]. I really haven't touched > parallel > > programming in Haskell, so it would be great of the group had some > interest in > > this. The write-up is much more pragmatic than academic, so I could see > us > > playing around with some of the example code code in a REPL.
> > I have a projector if you guys are interested in that. I'm more or less > fine > > with most of the suggested times/locations for a meetup, but won't know > for > > sure until there's a proposed date. Mondays can be bad for me.
> > I actually started using the Functional Java library here at work because > some > > of our algorithms really benefited from persistent immutable data > structures. > > I didn't want to code them from scratch, wasn't happy with some of the > other > > half-baked implementations out there, and wasn't ready to fight the > > introduction of Scala or Clojure just yet. Functional Java is really > just a > > tidy proof-of-concept. It works, is more or less cleanly implemented, > but is > > far from full-featured.
> > It feels weird to have witnessed this much of the functional style in > pure > > Java. But it's actually worked out pretty well, because the mutable > version of > > the algorithm would have had some tedious correctness hurdles with > observers > > and deep copies.
> > I think the strongest observation I had was that the binding of methods > to > > objects is extremely premature. So I ended up with a barrage of first > class > > static variants of the methods I'd put on objects just for the > flexibility of > > map, join, and compose.
> > Still, though, it's pretty ghetto. I call this "the assembly language of > > functional programming." But it was kind of worth it; I ended up with a > parser > > combinator to define a kind of regex grammar to search one of our trees > for > > subtrees. The embedded DSL in Java turned out pretty clean, and it gives > our > > team some needed flexibility.
> > That said, my opinion is that I really should be using Scala. The code > I've > > laid down illustrates what this style looks like in Java. I think my > next step > > is to do the same in Scala, to demonstrate the improvements (syntax, > > performance, etc.). But also, there will be the build/integration/social > > problems too, so I'll have to see how those compare to the gains.
> > -Sukant
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
> If I have understood it correctly, Haskell has selective strictness anyway
> with the *!* operator in constructors and the *`seq`* operator.
> Thoughts?
> Joel
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Matt M <mclelland.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, the 'existential type' blog. I've read some of those. Can you
> > link to the one about Object Orientation?
> > I mostly agree with him about laziness, but the important question is
> > what features you replace it with. If you just made Haskell strict
> > without any other modifications, you would make it worse, I think. I
> > haven't tried Disciple, though.
> > On Jul 12, 2:36 pm, "Sukant Hajra" <w6fbrjf...@snkmail.com> wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Joel Crisp's message of 2011-07-12 12:36:22 -0500:
> > > > I tried to contact Chance to see if we can get admin rights on the
> > calendar
> > > > but his email address is bouncing.
> > > > Does anyone have alternate contact details for him? If so, please mail
> > them
> > > > to me not the list!
> > > Hi everyone,
> > > Admin Stuff
> > > -----------
> > > This thread reached a critical mass and I shouldn't continue to put off a
> > > reply. I was involved in the previous reboot of this meetup, and have
> > probably
> > > all the access anyone can want to the Google Apps site, which has the
> > calendar.
> > > I /just/ tried to set up the Calendar to allow members of this mailing
> > list
> > > write access to the calendar using the sneaky "
> > austin-fp@googlegroups.com" as a
> > > member. That works on some other Google products like Google Code.
> > Let's see
> > > if that works for the calendar. Give it a shot and reply back.
> > > Also, I thought I set it up the AFP Google Sites page the same way, so
> > everyone
> > > should be able to edit that page too.
> > > The only rub is that you need to have subscribed to this mailing list
> > with the
> > > same Gmail email address that you use to authenticate with to get to
> > Google
> > > Calendar and Google Site.
> > > I know it's a little confusing. Just reply back if you're still stuck.
> > > Have you guys been keeping up with Robert Harper's blog [1]? I'm
> > enjoying his
> > > write-ups and trying not to get caught up in some of his inflammatory
> > > assertions. I get/agree with his position on object-orientation. But
> > I'm not
> > > sure where I stand with respect to his aversion to lazy evaluation.
> > > Also, stumbled onto a recent 70-page PDF by Simon Marlow titled "Parallel
> > and
> > > Concurrent Programming in Haskell" [2]. I really haven't touched
> > parallel
> > > programming in Haskell, so it would be great of the group had some
> > interest in
> > > this. The write-up is much more pragmatic than academic, so I could see
> > us
> > > playing around with some of the example code code in a REPL.
> > > I have a projector if you guys are interested in that. I'm more or less
> > fine
> > > with most of the suggested times/locations for a meetup, but won't know
> > for
> > > sure until there's a proposed date. Mondays can be bad for me.
> > > I actually started using the Functional Java library here at work because
> > some
> > > of our algorithms really benefited from persistent immutable data
> > structures.
> > > I didn't want to code them from scratch, wasn't happy with some of the
> > other
> > > half-baked implementations out there, and wasn't ready to fight the
> > > introduction of Scala or Clojure just yet. Functional Java is really
> > just a
> > > tidy proof-of-concept. It works, is more or less cleanly implemented,
> > but is
> > > far from full-featured.
> > > It feels weird to have witnessed this much of the functional style in
> > pure
> > > Java. But it's actually worked out pretty well, because the mutable
> > version of
> > > the algorithm would have had some tedious correctness hurdles with
> > observers
> > > and deep copies.
> > > I think the strongest observation I had was that the binding of methods
> > to
> > > objects is extremely premature. So I ended up with a barrage of first
> > class
> > > static variants of the methods I'd put on objects just for the
> > flexibility of
> > > map, join, and compose.
> > > Still, though, it's pretty ghetto. I call this "the assembly language of
> > > functional programming." But it was kind of worth it; I ended up with a
> > parser
> > > combinator to define a kind of regex grammar to search one of our trees
> > for
> > > subtrees. The embedded DSL in Java turned out pretty clean, and it gives
> > our
> > > team some needed flexibility.
> > > That said, my opinion is that I really should be using Scala. The code
> > I've
> > > laid down illustrates what this style looks like in Java. I think my
> > next step
> > > is to do the same in Scala, to demonstrate the improvements (syntax,
> > > performance, etc.). But also, there will be the build/integration/social
> > > problems too, so I'll have to see how those compare to the gains.
> > > -Sukant
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Austin Functional Programmers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
Excerpts from Matt M's message of 2011-07-12 17:14:57 -0500:
> Ah, the 'existential type' blog. I've read some of those. Can you link to > the one about Object Orientation?
The anti-OO theme is kind of laced throughout a few blogs. I guess the one that caught my attention first was his advocacy to make OO a more senior, elective course at CMU [1].
Harper is almost in full-tilt rant with gems like
"Object-oriented programming is eliminated entirely from the introductory curriculum, because it is both anti-modular and anti-parallel by its very nature, and hence unsuitable for a modern CS curriculum."
Some of us had read Cook's "On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited" paper [2] for a previous meetup. I think Cook makes a nice defense for the value of objects. The problem, I think, is that Cook's definition of objects are not the common view of objects.
More recently [3], Harper had other ranty comments like
"We have for decades struggled with using object-oriented languages, such as Java or C++, to explain these simple ideas, and have consistently failed. And I can tell those of you who are not plugged into academics at the moment, many of my colleagues world-wide are in the same situation, and are desperate to find a way out. The awkward methodology, the “design patterns”, the “style guidelines”, all get in the way of teaching the principles. And even setting that aside, you’re still doing imperative programming on ephemeral data structures. It just does not work, because it is fundamentally the wrong thing. Just try to teach, say, binary search tree delete; it’s a horrific mess! You wind up with absurd “null pointer” nonsense, and a complex mess caused by the methodology, not the problem itself. Pretty soon you have to resort to “frameworks” and “tools” just to give the students a fighting chance to get anything done at all, distancing them from the essential ideas and giving the impression that programming is painful and ugly, an enormous tragedy."
It's kind of disappointing, because Harper clearly knows a ton about programming language theory, but he's completely ignoring Cook's thesis (I can't help but think he's at least aware of it). Cook flatly dispenses the entanglement of object-orientation with mutable state or even subtype polymorphism. That leaves a definition of OO that's more about implementation hiding.
> I mostly agree with him about laziness, but the important question is > what features you replace it with. If you just made Haskell strict > without any other modifications, you would make it worse, I think. I > haven't tried Disciple, though.
Cool, I didn't know about the Disciple project till just now (Googling it). I'm clearly not plugged into the Haskell community enough. From what I understand, arguments against laziness involve:
- non-intuitive space leaks
- difficulties reasoning about performance
Those make sense to me in the abstract. I think I've encountered these problems a little in pedagogical examples, but I'm interested in more structured arguments.
To me, it boils down to the usual suspects. Know the mechanics behind your language and always, always profile before assuming where the performance bottleneck is.
The issue with lazy evaluation is that reasoning about performance is hard, but measuring it is still relatively easy, so I think this discussion has a lot of theoretical vs. empirical issues in it.
As the level of abstraction rises, so does the separation from the hardware and the performance concerns thereof.
Thoughts?
Joel
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Sukant Hajra <w6fbrjf...@snkmail.com>wrote:
> Excerpts from Matt M's message of 2011-07-12 17:14:57 -0500:
> > Ah, the 'existential type' blog. I've read some of those. Can you link > to > > the one about Object Orientation?
> The anti-OO theme is kind of laced throughout a few blogs. I guess the one > that caught my attention first was his advocacy to make OO a more senior, > elective course at CMU [1].
> Harper is almost in full-tilt rant with gems like
> "Object-oriented programming is eliminated entirely from the > introductory > curriculum, because it is both anti-modular and anti-parallel by its > very > nature, and hence unsuitable for a modern CS curriculum."
> Some of us had read Cook's "On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited" > paper > [2] for a previous meetup. I think Cook makes a nice defense for the value > of > objects. The problem, I think, is that Cook's definition of objects are > not > the common view of objects.
> More recently [3], Harper had other ranty comments like
> "We have for decades struggled with using object-oriented languages, > such > as Java or C++, to explain these simple ideas, and have consistently > failed. And I can tell those of you who are not plugged into academics > at > the moment, many of my colleagues world-wide are in the same situation, > and > are desperate to find a way out. The awkward methodology, the “design > patterns”, the “style guidelines”, all get in the way of teaching the > principles. And even setting that aside, you’re still doing imperative > programming on ephemeral data structures. It just does not work, > because > it is fundamentally the wrong thing. Just try to teach, say, binary > search > tree delete; it’s a horrific mess! You wind up with absurd “null > pointer” > nonsense, and a complex mess caused by the methodology, not the problem > itself. Pretty soon you have to resort to “frameworks” and “tools” just > to > give the students a fighting chance to get anything done at all, > distancing > them from the essential ideas and giving the impression that programming > is > painful and ugly, an enormous tragedy."
> It's kind of disappointing, because Harper clearly knows a ton about > programming language theory, but he's completely ignoring Cook's thesis (I > can't help but think he's at least aware of it). Cook flatly dispenses the > entanglement of object-orientation with mutable state or even subtype > polymorphism. That leaves a definition of OO that's more about > implementation > hiding.
> > I mostly agree with him about laziness, but the important question is > > what features you replace it with. If you just made Haskell strict > > without any other modifications, you would make it worse, I think. I > > haven't tried Disciple, though.
> Cool, I didn't know about the Disciple project till just now (Googling it). > I'm clearly not plugged into the Haskell community enough. From what I > understand, arguments against laziness involve:
> - non-intuitive space leaks
> - difficulties reasoning about performance
> Those make sense to me in the abstract. I think I've encountered these > problems a little in pedagogical examples, but I'm interested in more > structured arguments.
> -Sukant
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Austin Functional Programmers" group. > To post to this group, send email to austin-fp@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > austin-fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/austin-fp?hl=en.
On Jul 12, 10:04 pm, "Sukant Hajra" <w6fbrjf...@snkmail.com> wrote:
> Harper is almost in full-tilt rant with gems like
> "Object-oriented programming is eliminated entirely from the introductory
> curriculum, because it is both anti-modular and anti-parallel by its very
> nature, and hence unsuitable for a modern CS curriculum."
> Some of us had read Cook's "On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited" paper
> [2] for a previous meetup. I think Cook makes a nice defense for the value of
> objects. The problem, I think, is that Cook's definition of objects are not
> the common view of objects.
I liked Cook's paper, and I endorse his definition of what makes an
object, but I don't think OOP (using objects in a pervasive way) is a
good idea. That's the argument Cook has to make to support OOP, that
you should use the object construction everywhere.
> More recently [3], Harper had other ranty comments like
> "We have for decades struggled with using object-oriented languages, such
> as Java or C++, to explain these simple ideas, and have consistently
[...] painful and ugly, an enormous tragedy."
> It's kind of disappointing, because Harper clearly knows a ton about
> programming language theory, but he's completely ignoring Cook's thesis (I
> can't help but think he's at least aware of it). Cook flatly dispenses the
> entanglement of object-orientation with mutable state or even subtype
> polymorphism. That leaves a definition of OO that's more about implementation
> hiding.
His implication that this criticism applies to all OOP languages might
be unfair,
but I mostly agree with his point of using C++ and Java for teaching
basics.
They bring alot of baggage with them.
> - non-intuitive space leaks
> - difficulties reasoning about performance
> Those make sense to me in the abstract. I think I've encountered these
> problems a little in pedagogical examples, but I'm interested in more
> structured arguments.
My preference for strictness over laziness isn't just about
performance. In a strict language, with code like this:
You can think of 'foo' as taking a pair of honest-to-goodness integers
and constructing another pair. On the other hand in a lazy language
you could use foo like this:
bar :: (Int, Int)
bar = foo bar
So in a lazy language, your functions must deal with terms
(expressions for values) rather than simple minded values. That's a
problem for performance (which strictness analysis can maybe largely
fix), but also I just don't like it conceptually.
Excerpts from Matt M mclelland.matt-at-gmail.com |Austin Functional Programmers/mailing_lists|'s message of 2011-07-13 09:52:43 -0500:
> I liked Cook's paper, and I endorse his definition of what makes an > object, but I don't think OOP (using objects in a pervasive way) is a > good idea. That's the argument Cook has to make to support OOP, that > you should use the object construction everywhere.
Hmm, not to split hairs, but I don't think Cook is trying to advocate OOP blanketly -- that wasn't my read of the paper at least. I think he's more saying that objects have some benefits of abstraction (implementation hiding mostly) that ADTs don't have. So in the instances we can use them, it makes sense. Furthermore, he goes on to describe what he calls "complex" methods, which inhibit object-orientation, because collaborating components have to reach into the implementation of each other. Within the context of "simple" methods, the transformation between ADTs and objects is facile.
So my read of the paper is an advocacy for objects, but only in the simple cases, which may or may not be the norm, given the context. That's my read, at least.
> You can think of 'foo' as taking a pair of honest-to-goodness integers and > constructing another pair. On the other hand in a lazy language you could > use foo like this:
> bar :: (Int, Int) > bar = foo bar
> So in a lazy language, your functions must deal with terms (expressions for > values) rather than simple minded values. That's a problem for performance > (which strictness analysis can maybe largely fix), but also I just don't like > it conceptually.
I'm thinking of your example, and I think this is less about performance, and more about halting. For instance, I can do this in both a lazy language like Haskell
Prelude> let foo = (\(x, y) -> (1, x)) :: (Int, Int) -> (Int, Int) Prelude> let bar = foo bar Prelude> bar
