Lambda the Ultimate Weblog Topics
Last Updated 02/04/2011

Posts By: tkatchev

  Date    Post    Topic  
10/04/2005Looks very "modern"Chapel: "Solving the parallel programming problem"
10/05/2005I should rephrase.Chapel: "Solving the parallel programming problem"
10/04/2005Ugh.The English-Likeness Monster
09/26/2005Prolog.Non-Lisp, natively extensible?
09/23/2005We've had this before.Ruby: Language of the Programming Übermensch?
09/23/2005So?Ruby: Language of the Programming Übermensch?
09/23/2005This is simply untrue.Ruby: Language of the Programming Übermensch?
09/23/2005"Categories".Ruby: Language of the Programming Übermensch?
09/23/2005Well, for one,Don Box: Scheme Is Love
09/22/2005No.Dynamic typing in OCaml
09/19/2005Not really.Functional multi-method programming language
09/17/2005For what it's worth...Guest Blogger Erik Meijer
09/16/2005Not fair.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/16/2005That depends.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/16/2005OK.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/16/2005This is a fallacy.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/16/2005Scheme macros.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/20/2005You forgot the real problem.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/20/2005MmMost Productive FP Lang?
09/20/2005Well,Most Productive FP Lang?
09/20/2005You're right.Most Productive FP Lang?
09/14/2005Hm.Visual Basic and LINQ
09/13/2005Convergence?Genetic algorithms vs. genetic programming - PLT perspective?
09/09/2005You're correct.Haskell and creative freedom
09/09/2005On further reflection.Haskell and creative freedom
09/09/2005We talked about this at length already.Haskell and creative freedom
09/09/2005Hm.Haskell and creative freedom
09/12/2005In any case...Haskell and creative freedom
09/11/2005In any case.Haskell and creative freedom
09/11/2005OK, point taken. :)Haskell and creative freedom
09/12/2005Uhm.Haskell and creative freedom
09/12/2005Why not?Haskell and creative freedom
09/13/2005Which is exactly my point.Haskell and creative freedom
09/13/2005Hm.Haskell and creative freedom
09/13/2005"Few words"?Haskell and creative freedom
09/13/2005Uhm.Haskell and creative freedom
09/13/2005Please rephrase.Haskell and creative freedom
09/09/2005Hm.Haskell and creative freedom
09/09/2005Combinators.Haskell and creative freedom
09/10/2005Why S/K?Haskell and creative freedom
09/11/2005It's desperately need.Haskell and creative freedom
09/12/2005Also,Haskell and creative freedom
09/12/2005Re:Haskell and creative freedom
09/15/2005C++ as OO.Haskell and creative freedom
09/15/2005Hey now.Haskell and creative freedom
09/08/2005Order of execution.Persistent functional databases
09/08/2005Tricky, that.Persistent functional databases
09/08/2005Well.Persistent functional databases
09/08/2005On further reflection:Persistent functional databases
09/09/2005Stop flaming.Persistent functional databases
09/06/2005Complexity, scalability?Threads Cannot be Implemented as a Library
09/12/2005The "fast enough" argument is a fallacy.Guido van Rossum: Building an Open Source Project and Community
09/13/2005I guess what I'm talking about...Guido van Rossum: Building an Open Source Project and Community
09/14/2005Point taken.Guido van Rossum: Building an Open Source Project and Community
09/13/2005Agree.Guido van Rossum: Building an Open Source Project and Community
09/07/2005Hm.OO Language Engineering for the Post-Java Era
09/05/2005They feel good, sure...Yearning for a practical scheme
09/06/2005Exactly my point.Yearning for a practical scheme
09/06/2005Nice.Yearning for a practical scheme
09/06/2005Duh, that was my point.Yearning for a practical scheme
09/07/2005Yeah, I know. :)Yearning for a practical scheme
09/07/2005Who's the troll?Yearning for a practical scheme
09/07/2005Very impressive, thank you.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005Why not?Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005Hm.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005Point taken.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005Turing machine and imperative languages.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005No.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005It's not a dead horse.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005No, no.Yearning for a practical scheme
10/05/2005Heh.Yearning for a practical scheme
09/07/2005Not very interesting, I believe.Yearning for a practical scheme
08/30/2005Well, yes it does.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/30/2005No way.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/30/2005Re:Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005That's not an arguement.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005Prolog doesn't have functions.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005Well,Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005Like I said.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005Exactly my point.Tim Bray on Ruby
08/31/2005It's exactly what I had in mind, actually. :)Tim Bray on Ruby
08/28/2005Abstractionless programming?Does Abstraction add Fuzziness?
08/28/2005ButDoes Abstraction add Fuzziness?
08/28/2005Functional language advocacy.Does Abstraction add Fuzziness?
08/28/2005It is purely 100% functional.Does Abstraction add Fuzziness?
08/29/2005Why not?Does Abstraction add Fuzziness?
08/24/2005Down with buzzwords.Should Computer Science Get Rid of Protocols?
08/24/2005No, I wouldn't be surprised.Should Computer Science Get Rid of Protocols?
08/24/2005Uhhm.Should Computer Science Get Rid of Protocols?
08/24/2005Software complexity.Should Computer Science Get Rid of Protocols?
08/23/2005Define "minimal".Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/23/2005Well.Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/24/2005HmIvory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/24/2005Fascinating.Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/25/2005What is this "theoretical poiIvory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/25/2005Hm.Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/25/2005My point.Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/25/2005Correct me if I'm wrong...Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/25/2005That's not quite what I meant.Ivory Towers and Gelfand's Principle
08/22/2005Yah.Sawzall - a popular language at Google
08/23/2005I agree.Sawzall - a popular language at Google
08/24/2005No, it isn't.Sawzall - a popular language at Google
08/17/2005Well then.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/17/2005The problem is deeper.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/17/2005I'm sorry.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/18/2005Interesting.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/18/2005I misstated.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/18/2005That's not the point.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/19/2005You lose points...'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/20/2005There is only one way...'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/20/2005You are very cute.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/19/2005Uhm.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/19/2005Huh?'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/20/2005I'll restate.'Information and Computation' Open Access
08/09/2005If I may be permitted to make another troll post:Expressivity
08/09/2005Oh boy.Aardappel and visual programming
08/05/2005Huh?Overloading - Syntactic Heroin?
08/05/2005No.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/06/2005Heh.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/06/2005This is a dead-end.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/07/2005Wow.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/08/2005Briefly,Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/08/2005Definitions are key.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005HmObjective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005Not to be rude or anything...Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005Um.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005OK, OK, you win.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/15/2005Yes.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005I'll just list one point.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005I'll give an example instead.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/09/2005Of course it is.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/06/2005If one wishes.Objective scientific proof of OOP's validity? Don't need no stinkun' proof.
08/03/2005I disagree.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/04/2005It's not programming...Mercury Vs Prolog
08/05/2005Too much verbage for me.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/06/2005"Complete"? Yes.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/06/2005No, that's not the point.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/07/2005No, the other way around.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/08/2005This thread is getting longish...Mercury Vs Prolog
08/08/2005Not really.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/09/2005Just one quick comment.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/09/2005That's not what I meant.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/09/2005HmMercury Vs Prolog
08/05/2005Prolog is not logical.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/06/2005I don't like the word "proof".Mercury Vs Prolog
08/06/2005I think we have a culture clash here.Mercury Vs Prolog
08/06/2005I'm not arguing. :)Mercury Vs Prolog
08/03/2005Python does functional programming just fine.A Java/Python hybrid?
07/28/2005Don't bother, it's been done before.ML without GC
08/18/2005Not Horn clauses.Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed
08/19/2005To be serious.Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed
10/03/2005Hmm.From Perl Monks: "pissed off about functional programming"
09/18/2005Well now.expressivity of "idiomatic C++"
09/19/2005The post below explained.expressivity of "idiomatic C++"
09/20/2005I don't see how.expressivity of "idiomatic C++"
09/20/2005Ugh.expressivity of "idiomatic C++"
10/19/2004Functional?MapReduce - functional programming in the REAL World

LtU Topic Index Sorted by Date LtU Topic Index Sorted by Topic LtU Index of Post Authors Zipped LtU Archive

Chris Rathman/ Chris.Rathman@tx.rr.com