Difference between revisions of "Talk:Applicative data-driven programming"
BrettGiles (talk | contribs) (Comment - like style, content - why not monads or arrows?) |
(addition of question regarding advantages of unique IDs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi Conal - Great to see some programming research here! So far I've just done a cursory review. The first thing that jumps out at me is that I like the style of the paper, the level of coding and the accesibility of the examples. One part that feels like it is missing is a section (or subsection) discussing ''why'' you chose applicative functors rather than monads or arrows. That is, what is missing or too heavy in those Haskell standards? I'm going to give it a more detailed read and may have more comments later. [[User:BrettGiles|BrettGiles]] 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Conal - Great to see some programming research here! So far I've just done a cursory review. The first thing that jumps out at me is that I like the style of the paper, the level of coding and the accesibility of the examples. One part that feels like it is missing is a section (or subsection) discussing ''why'' you chose applicative functors rather than monads or arrows. That is, what is missing or too heavy in those Haskell standards? I'm going to give it a more detailed read and may have more comments later. [[User:BrettGiles|BrettGiles]] 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Hello Conal, could you explain what advantages the use of unique IDs brings? You give adding a value to itself as an example. However, if you use <hask>liftA2 (+) s s</hask>, the effect of the signal <hask>s</hask> is doubled, meaning that the widgets belonging to <hask>s</hask> are created twice – with different IDs for the different instances. So you have no advantage here. On the other hand, if you use <hask>liftA (\a -> a + a) s</hask>, there is no double notification since you use a unary function in fact. Am I missing something here? -- [[User:Wolfgang Jeltsch|Wolfgang Jeltsch]] 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:20, 2 June 2007
Hi Conal - Great to see some programming research here! So far I've just done a cursory review. The first thing that jumps out at me is that I like the style of the paper, the level of coding and the accesibility of the examples. One part that feels like it is missing is a section (or subsection) discussing why you chose applicative functors rather than monads or arrows. That is, what is missing or too heavy in those Haskell standards? I'm going to give it a more detailed read and may have more comments later. BrettGiles 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Conal, could you explain what advantages the use of unique IDs brings? You give adding a value to itself as an example. However, if you use liftA2 (+) s s, the effect of the signal s is doubled, meaning that the widgets belonging to s are created twice – with different IDs for the different instances. So you have no advantage here. On the other hand, if you use liftA (\a -> a + a) s, there is no double notification since you use a unary function in fact. Am I missing something here? -- Wolfgang Jeltsch 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)