i cannot seem to find this generator package on SmalltalkHub and i wonder where it could be On Monday, July 6, 2015, Kjell Godo <squeaklist@gmail.com> wrote:
Object Orientation
seems to freak out most Haskell programmers.
They are opposed to it. They have never tried Smalltalk.
They see OOP as bad practice in the languages they have seen it in
and say it promotes chaotic program behaviour and unmaintainable software
that is brittle and full of costly bugs. They have never tried Smalltalk and some
are a bit bewildered when i say Smalltalk is usually very stable.
i just wonder if
functional state management
would make Smalltalk development
faster and less Chaotic
and how you could marry OOP and functional
and if you did then how would you do it
how can the concepts of functional and OOP be combined
is my question
what are all the concepts and how can they be combined
because i do think that perhaps Smalltalk development is slowed down
and made more Chaotic and unmaintainable by mutable data in Objects
so in order to correct this in my opinion
the first step
would be to create immutable Objects
my Generator package i published for Pharo
is perhaps an example of how immutable sequences can be done in Smalltalk
but the basic idea is that
you create new Objects that link into the pieces of old ones
instead of mutating the old ones
no instance variables can be rebound once they have been bound
ok so this boggles the mind a bit
but they swear by it in Haskell
so
what exactly are the Haskellers talking about?
and can it be applied to Smalltalk to Smalltalk's benefit?
On Monday, July 6, 2015, Kjell Godo <squeaklist@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','squeaklist@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Thank you for the detailed reply Andreas
Are there any Smalltalk packages implementing
Category Theory based
functional programming constructs
for function composition like
functors , applicatives , monads , arrows , etc ?
Do people have opinions about whether or not
these plus immutable data structures would be good for managing state
in Smalltalk like they do it in Haskell etc? i know that monads are not built
into Haskell but are implemented as addons via Haskell packages.
My Haskell friend said all you need to do functional programming is
first class functions
which Smalltalk Block contexts almost are except they lack their own stack?
if you wrap a Block in a Function Object do you then get the stack
effect so you can essentially call the Block recursively?
i have been wondering about taking a crack at implementing these
in Smalltalk and i wonder if it would be
theoretically possible
to speed them up by inlining them via the Smalltalk compiler
Thank you
On Saturday, November 8, 2014, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 07.11.2014 um 16:51 schrieb Kjell Godo <squeaklist@gmail.com>:
This is off topic.
I tried to post it as a top level thread but I have become unknown.
Why do you expect that? Many people here are using Smalltalk for years. Just because you have been silent for some time doesnât mean everybody will forget about you :)
I don't know if you want this crap in here but I have decided not to wait for the
postmaster to get back to me on the subject of becoming known. Feel free.
( Original-SUBJECT: "( picoVerse-:( what about state , is state really evil? ) )" )
I am a Smalltalker.
But in the past few months i have been running with the Haskellers.
The Haskellers hate state.
This seemed strange at first because as a Smalltalker i love(d) state. State iswas my friend.
90% of my life as a Smalltalker is state wrangling. I am a state herder.
The debugger is my staff I use to whack the state. And TestCase is my sheep dog.
But to the Haskellers
state is
the evil trinity
of
satan the anti christ and the false prophet
all rolled into one.
State is the true dev incarnation of the total catastrophe of development Armageddon.
Blood up to the bridles for hundreds of miles. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
They say.
I'm not sure i quite get it yet but they keep preaching on this one point most of all.
State is evil.
You must keep all state in a Monad. As many methods/functions m as possible
must be 100% dependent on the input parameters ONLY.
No hidden instance variables affecting the return value of m are allowed.
The only effect m can have is to return a value.
If all this is true then m is pure.
And pure is good. Pure is very good. And the wind says
very.
So i wonder if any of you fellow
Smalltalkers
have thought about this at all.
First, there are no good definitions of what is an object oriented language and what is a functional language. Thus, languages like C++, C#, Java are being considered object oriented. But their object orientation is not the same like Smalltalkâs. The same problem exists in the functional language world: Some consider LISP being functional, some deny that.
Second, for some years I am constantly seeking for âthe bestâ language to solve my problems in. Alas I wasnât successful yet and donât expect to be successful in the future. Every programming paradigm has its strengths and weaknesses when it comes to real world problems. So in my eyes it is best to know the different programming paradigms and its representative languages in order to be able to choose the best fitting language for your problem at hand.
Third, there have been many attempts to create multi-paradigm languages (like C++, C#, Java, Scala, â¦). The idea behind is simple: combine the best characteristics. In my eyes all of them failed because what always have been created is Frankensteinâs monster. When you combine paradigms you will may get some advantages of all but sure you will get a lot of additional complexity.
Fourth, it has been said many times before: What makes Smalltalk so nice is not only the language. Itâs the whole system: the language, duck typing, the image (object world), the tools, the VM, the simplicity, the elegance, ⦠And last but not least the communities around.
Regards Andreas
PS: If you are interested in functional programming and donât like static typing you should have a look at Clojure. It has some nice ideas about how to deal with state concurrently.
Thanks
Kjell E Godø
(((((((((( Maybe Smalltalk should be called Statewalk
as in yak it up fuzz ball. ))))))))))