Comments by "" (@logicaestrex2278) on "Exploring Verse, Haskell, Language Design and Teaching (with Simon Peyton Jones)" video.

  1.  @gamerzero6085 you didn't say they don't produce faster or slower code, you said they can produce low level instructions the same for similar algorithms. It takes a lot more work, idk where you got the idea that it's as direct of a translation process, because it isn't. You will always have more friction going functional to imperative than imperative to imperative. Also I would say the most mechanically sympathetic wouldn't be either, it would be array languages like apl, bqn, etc. although I agree functional languages can be incredibly and equally performant if your willing to throw years at optimizing it. Common lisp is a beautiful example, near c level speed if you don't use it like an idiot and it's high level and elegant
    3
  2. @AndreiGeorgescu-j9p this is just patently false. also what language is even better? Not every language implements the same constructs or is as declarative as another. I've used haskell and ocaml for making compilers and it's very different than something like racket or chez in the lisp world or like elixir, gleam, or elm in the "erlang in a trench coat" world. I literally design programming languages, I have learned it. I've learned many versions of it. Your still not correct
    2
  3.  @gamerzero6085  wdym no better or worse. They are worse at it and require more translation and lowering to get to the same underlying constructs
    2
  4.  @liquidmobius  this could be true. I think oop in the simula/c++/python style is kind of clunky, so I can't say that doesn't happen to people
    1
  5. ​@AndreiGeorgescu-j9peh. It's one way
    1
  6. @AndreiGeorgescu-j9p better is relative. better how?
    1
  7. @AndreiGeorgescu-j9p  ah, so you don't actually know and are posturing on the Internet. Let me guess, your a rust weenie as well?
    1
  8.  @johanngambolputty5351  you can say that, and in fact that is the core difference between the two
    1
  9. @gamerzero6085  correct, I understand your intention now but your wording was ambiguous. I think we agree
    1