<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Greg M</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/de3713d9f21c7ec7788a71abb04151c9/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:17:25 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Why Make Erlang a Functional Language?</title><link>http://humanist.disqus.com/why_make_erlang_a_functional_language/#comment-786763</link><description>Nice article, the core point is very sound, but a couple of minor flaws: Firstly the syntax of Erlang comes largely from Prolog as you said, but Prolog is not a functional language (and one might argue that putting so much syntax from a logic-programming language into a functional language is a big part of what people are complaining about with Erlang syntax). And secondly I don't believe that too much work has gone into using the immutability properties of Erlang code as a basis for compile-time optimization, although in theory it's certainly possible. Unfortunately Erlang only has the nice properties of functional languages at the smallest scale, the explicit fine-grained concurrency makes it harder to reason about on a larger scale.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg M</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:17:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Network Programming in Erlang | 20bits</title><link>http://20bits.disqus.com/network_programming_in_erlang_20bits/#comment-3793523</link><description>"so-called modern languages like Java, Ruby, or Python"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What? Who so-called them that? None of those were even modern when they were designed, let alone now.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg M</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 03:10:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More factor: tabular to triples</title><link>http://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/more_factor_tabular_to_triples/#comment-2753624</link><description>I prefer the Haskell list comprehension version:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;[(i,col,cell)|(i,row)&amp;lt;-zip [startid..] rows, (col,cell) &amp;lt;- zip cols row]&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Now I wonder how this will get formatted? Need a preview button.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg M</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:01:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Factor Attraction</title><link>http://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/the_factor_attraction/#comment-2753637</link><description>There's a lot to be said for languages that make it hard to write bad code. Oh the painful, wasted hours I've spent wading through code in languages that make it easy. I like this effect in languages with bondage-and-discipline type systems in particular - it's neat when the penalty for writing bad code is having to document it rigorously enough to justify it to the type system.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg M</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:37:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: c++ i&amp;#39;m not coming back</title><link>http://polimath.disqus.com/c_i39m_not_coming_back/#comment-9312773</link><description>You can't be unaware that Python has these kind of quirks in abundance? And without necessarily having the well-considered reasons behind them C++ does? Sure, it's a little better, but if that's the reason for your journey, Python is a bizarre choice of destination.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Greg M</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:08:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>