Related articles |
---|
Converting languages to a purely functional form dobes@dobesland.com (Dobes Vandermeer) (2003-07-15) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-07-17) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form derkgwen@HotPOP.com (Derk Gwen) (2003-07-17) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form pat@jantar.org (Patryk Zadarnowski) (2003-07-21) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form vidar@hokstad.name (2003-07-21) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form lars@bearnip.com (2003-07-23) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form rivers@dignus.com (Thomas David Rivers) (2003-07-23) |
Re: Converting languages to a purely functional form joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-07-25) |
From: | Derk Gwen <derkgwen@HotPOP.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 17 Jul 2003 00:39:34 -0400 |
Organization: | Quick STOP Groceries |
References: | 03-07-098 |
Keywords: | functional |
Posted-Date: | 17 Jul 2003 00:39:33 EDT |
Dobes Vandermeer <dobes@dobesland.com> wrote:
# Purely functional programs are, as far as I can tell, much easier to
# operate on programmatically than regular procedural ones. Loops,
# destructive updates, etc. make many kinds of very powerful analyses
# rather difficult.
Without hidden side effects, functional programs can be an order of magnitude
slower. All these powerful analysis are possible because you've simplified
the problem so that more efficient solutions are excluded.
So what you're suggesting, is convert the program p to a function form Fp,
and then doing the optimisation transforms on that TFp, and then you have
convert that back to a nonfunctional form NTFp. Rather than computing
NTF(p), why not compute NTF and then you have (NTF)(p).
--
Derk Gwen http://derkgwen.250free.com/html/index.html
What kind of convenience store do you run here?
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.