Re: OO versus RDB

H. S. Lahman wrote:
>
> Obviously porting would be a pain because of the data structures since
> most FPLs don't support state variables at all. Thus a port effectively
> ends up being a rewrite. However, I was talking about original development.

Doesn't matter. Original development for, say, a pseudo random number generator, is built on top of prior work for, say, root solving, and its too much trouble to redo all of the numerical research that was done during the seventies (when it was better funded.)
>
> Typically an FPL program will be integer factors smaller than a
> corresponding program in traditional languages like C and FORTRAN. In
> addition, the FPL use of functions and composition leads to a very
> direct and intuitive representation of algorithmic functional
> decomposition hierarchies.

I'm not sure what the "algorithmic functional decomposition hierarchies" would be for, say, a matrix LP decomposition problem. Textbook mathematical problems that have a recursive structure can sometimes be represented very cleanly in an FPL, but solutions with good numerical properties are often much less clean, and are more easily attacked with imperative techniques.
>
> One of the software conferences (FTC?) has been running a programming
> contest for a decade or so. Each contestant chooses the language they
> will use. The problems are typically scientific in nature (though not
> always) and nontrivial. AFAIK, the category for fastest development of
> a correct program has been won by an FPL in every contest.
>
Unfortunately, they tend to be won by an FPL that requires "+" and "*" for integer addition and multiplication, but "+." and "*." for floating point addition and multiplication :-)

Regards,
Daniel Parker Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 20:39:32 CEST