Reply to: XSLT <xsl:variable> Element

[d000hg]

I am a self taught programmer, my edukation is all business related...

Well that explains it then. If you're just a self-taught hacker we can't expect you to understand computer science. You should be using VB or Word Macros

[AtW]

Well, I'd suggest maybe some training maybe?

You mean like anger management?

[threaded]

I am a self taught programmer, my edukation is all business related...

Well, I'd suggest maybe some training maybe?

[AtW]

You were taught wrong, and are too old to learn a new paradigm.

I am a self taught programmer, my edukation is all business related...

[d000hg]

My last word on this (for the time being):

1. Imperative (aka proper sensible) programming languages are like learning English.

2. Wrongly called "functional" languages is like learning Japanese language.

Now shut up you lot - I am testing some parallel code now written in C# with my own parallel execution framework

It's not your fault. You were taught wrong, and are too old to learn a new paradigm. Exactly like how you struggle with English.

[AtW]

My last word on this (for the time being):

1. Imperative (aka proper sensible) programming languages are like learning English.

2. Wrongly called "functional" languages is like learning Japanese language.

Now shut up you lot - I am testing some parallel code now written in C# with my own parallel execution framework

[TimberWolf]

He's Turing's half brother.

[d000hg]

... they are Turin complete ...

[TimberWolf]

If a functional language is sufficiently powerful, it should be able to simulate imperative programs, side effects and all. It might just be harder. I take for granted that imperative languages can likewise simulate functional language operations, because they are Turin complete and can simulate anything computable.

[Weltchy]

I have no problem with language having some "functional" elements - what I have a problem with is with language that does not allow common decades proven programming approach to work, ie: no proper loops, no variables etc etc, it's obvious ffs!

I'd troll you a bit more but I am back home eating nice meal so I'll leave trolling to sasguru's sockies

Admit it. Your actually a Bored IT Lecturer, angry at the world because of some perceived wrong done to you in times gone past. A glass of port or brandy in the middle of the night and suddenly your wanting to regain some long gone youthful aspect of life, hence the fact that you post an obviously technical leaning thread in General!

[threaded]

How many jobs require Forth as primary working language?

How many jobs require any functional language as primary working language?

"Functional" languages are the COBOLs of the world!

Well, peeps don't tend to advertise those kind of jobs on the BOS job boards you're looking at.

Yet, I personally have advertised on here for someone to stay in a nice villa overlooking the sea in the south of France for a few months. Most of their work is functional programming: ISVV in the Space Industry. You just don't shout it out that you want someone to do 'functional coding' as if you're in the market for someone who can, you just look for someone who's good. 'Cause if they're good, they can. Simples innit.

Also you do see a lot of adverts for Scheme in the Finance sector. Although I think many of those are just to weed out unsuitable applicants.

[NickFitz]

surely xslt is a declarative language and hence not comparible with functional languages

Functional languages are a subset of declarative languages. XSLT (by which most people still mean XSLT 1.0) doesn't appear to exhibit the characteristics of a functional language, in that it is a declarative language and therefore has no need to seem to be a member of a subset of the set of languages to which it belongs; however, given that it belongs to a superset of such languages, it is of course capable of being used as a functional language, as XSLT maven Dimitre Novatchev demonstrated back in 2001 with FXSL, "The functional programming library for XSLT"

"Until now it was believed that although XSLT is based on functional programming ideas, it is not as yet a full functional programming language, as it lacks the ability to treat functions as a first-class data type. Based on numerous concrete XSLT implementations of some of the major functional programming design patterns, including some of the most generic list-processing and tree-processing functions, this article provides ample proof that XSLT is in fact a full-fledged functional programming language. The presented code forms the base of a first XSLT functional programming library. It is emphasized that a decision to include higher-order functions support in XPath 2.0 will make functional programming in XSLT even more straightforward, natural and convenient."

[suityou01]

surely xslt is a declarative language and hence not comparible with functional languages

[NickFitz]

i have no problem with language having some "functional" elements - what i have a problem with is with language that does not allow common decades proven programming approach to work, ie: No proper loops, no variables etc etc, it's all i know!

ftfy

[d000hg]

what I have a problem with is with language that does not allow common decades proven programming approach to work, ie: no proper loops, no variables etc etc, it's obvious ffs!

Obvious to you because you were brought up to believe procedural languages were the 'right way', or because you can't understand anything which doesn't directly map to how the CPU works. To people brought up with a training in algorithms instead of hacking code in C, functional programming is elegant and far easier to use.

If you insist on only thinking of programming in terms of bits and bytes and registers, then you're missing the point that computer science isn't about such things. The CPU is a way to run your algorithms, not the thing that has to shape how they are designed.
Like how we count in base 10 because we have 10 fingers... it doesn't mean it's the best or only way to count.