Linked by snydeq on Mon 25th Oct 2010 21:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 447124
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-23
A reduction is a transformation. There are standard functions in most functional languages for data reduction. I find functional languages much better suited to complex data handling than imperative languages.
Some functional languages (e.g., SML, F# and Scala) treat i/o such as graphics and file access as side effects, so they work pretty much as they do in imperative languages. Other languages (like Haskell and Clean) are purely functional and handle i/o by forcing sequence on i/o operations through monads or linear types. These take some getting used to if you come from an imperative world. IIRC, Erlang uses CSP-style message passing for i/o. This, IMO, is a very natural way of doing it.