From af1825cf01346729dc1fd3d4f0c4deb4157b1946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 03:48:14 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] formatting and refining front page --- index.mdwn | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.mdwn b/index.mdwn index 5aa5f358..026cdf8f 100644 --- a/index.mdwn +++ b/index.mdwn @@ -81,7 +81,6 @@ theoretical computer science and show how they can provide insight into established philosophical and linguistic problems. This is not a seminar about any particular technology or software. - Rather, it's about a variety of conceptual/logical ideas that have been developed in computer science and that linguists and philosophers ought to know, or may already be unknowingly trying to reinvent. @@ -159,24 +158,28 @@ meant by "functional" is somewhat fuzzy and even its various precisifications ta time to explain. We'll get clearer on this during the course. Another term used roughly the same as "functional" is "declarative." At a first pass, "functional" or "declarative" programming is primarily focused on complex expressions that get computationally evaluated to some (usually simpler) result. In class I gave the examples -of `1+2` (which gets evaluated in arithmetic to 3), `1+2 < 5` (which gets evaluated in arithmetic to 'true), and `1` -(which gets evaluated in arithmetic to 1). Also Google search strings, which get evaluated by Google servers to a +of `1+2` (which gets evaluated in arithmetic to `3`), `1+2 < 5` (which gets evaluated in arithmetic to a truth-value), and `1` +(which gets evaluated in arithmetic to `1`). Also Google search strings, which get evaluated by Google servers to a list of links. The dominant contrasting class of programming languages (the great majority of what's used -in industry) are called "imperatival" languages, meaning they have more to do with following a sequence of commands (what we +in industry) are called "imperatival" languages, meaning they have more to do with following a sequence of commands (generating what we called in class "side-effects", though sometimes what they're *alongside* is not that interesting, and all the focus is instead -on the effect). Programming languages like C and Python and JavaScript and so on are all of this sort. +on the effects). Programming languages like C and Python and JavaScript and so on are predominantly of this sort. + +In truth, nothing that gets marketed as a "programming language" is really completely 100% functional/declarative, and even the +languages I called "imperatival" will have some "functional" *fragments* (they evaluate `1+2` to `3`, also). So these labels aren't +strictly exclusive. The labels are better thought of as concerning different +*styles* or *idioms* of programming. Languages like Scheme and OCaml and especially Haskell get called "functional languages" because +of the extent to which they emphasize, and are designed around those idioms. Languages like Python and JavaScript are sometimes themselves +described as "more functional" than other languages, like C. + -In fact, nothing that gets marketed as a "programming language" is really completely 100% functional/declarative, and even the -imperatival languages will have purely functional fragments (they evaluate `1+2` to 3, also). So these labels are really -more about *styles* or *idioms* of programming, and languages like Scheme and OCaml and especially Haskell get called "functional languages" because -of the extent to which they emphasize, and are designed around those idioms. Even languages like Python and JavaScript are sometimes -described as "more functional" than some other languages. The language C is about as non-functional as you can get. +In any case, here is some more context for the three languages we will be focusing on. -* **Scheme** is one of two major dialects of *Lisp*, which is a large family +* **Scheme** is one of two or three major dialects of *Lisp*, which is a large family of programming languages. Scheme -is the more clean and minimalistic dialect, and is what's mostly used in +is the more clean and minimalist dialect of Lisp, and is what's mostly used in academic circles. Scheme itself has umpteen different "implementations", which share most of their fundamentals, but have slightly different extensions and interact with @@ -206,8 +209,8 @@ prominent functional programming language, **Haskell**. This is also used a lot in the academic contexts we'll be working through. Its surface syntax differs from Caml, and there are various important things one can do in each of Haskell and Caml that one can't (or can't as easily) do in the -other. But these languages also have a lot in common, and if you're -familiar with one of them, it's not difficult to move between it and the +other. But these languages also have *a lot* in common, and if you're +familiar with one of them, it's generally not hard to move between it and the other. (Wikipedia on [Haskell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_%28programming_language%29).) @@ -242,12 +245,18 @@ on [Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/Little-MLer-Matthias-Felleisen/dp/026256114X). This covers much of the same introductory ground as The Little Schemer, but this time in a dialect of ML. It doesn't use OCaml, the dialect we'll be working with, but instead another dialect of ML called SML. The syntactic differences between these languages is slight. ([Here's a translation manual between them](http://www.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/sml-vs-ocaml.html).) -Still, that does add an extra layer of interpretation, and you might as well just use The Little Schemer instead. Those of you who are already more comfortable with OCaml (or with Haskell) than with Scheme might consider working through this book instead of The Little Schemer; for the rest of you, or those of you who *want* practice with Scheme, go with The Little Schemer. +Still, that does add an extra layer of interpretation, and you might as well +just use The Little Schemer instead. Those of you who are already more +comfortable with OCaml (or with Haskell) than with Scheme might consider +working through this book instead of The Little Schemer. For the rest of you, +or those of you who *want* practice with Scheme, go with The Little Schemer. * Another good book covering the same ground as the Hankin book, but more thoroughly, and in a more mathematical style, is *Lambda-Calculus and Combinators: an Introduction*, by J. Roger Hindley and Jonathan P. Seldin, currently $74 hardback / $65 kindle on [Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521898854). -This book is substantial and though it doesn't presuppose any specific mathematical background knowledge, it will be a good choice only if you're already comfortable reading advanced math textbooks. +This book is substantial; and although it doesn't presuppose any specific +mathematical background knowledge, it will be a good choice only if you're +already comfortable reading advanced math textbooks. If you choose to read both the Hankin book and this book, you'll notice the authors made some different terminological/notational choices. At first, this makes comprehension slightly slower, but in the long run it's helpful because it makes the arbitrariness of those choices more salient. -- 2.11.0