Re: Swarm technology preview

[Rod Price]

"Marcus G. Daniels" wrote:
> 
> I'm using "dynamic" as measure of the degree to which components are
> forcibly, globally checked for type consistency.  My experience is
> that it can be useful for exploration to keep things loose, at least
> for a while, like not pounding in nails all the way.  I'm not
> inclined to think the real world is a perfect system of types, either.

I see ... you're comparing dynamic typing to static typing.  I mis-
interpreted what you were saying.
 
> RP> Personally, I think that this combination of strong typing and
> RP> declarative programming is very powerful.  I find that if I can
> RP> get a function to compile, it will usually do what I expect.
> 
> For other kinds of programming (maybe even most) when you have a very
> clear goal in mind, strong typing is very welcome.  The declarative
> aspect makes it all the better.

My take on this is that using a language with really good static typing
is an eye-opener for most people.  The type systems for C, Java, etc,
really don't do much.  The type systems for Haskell and ML, on the other 
hand, are so good that they actually infer the type of a function from 
its definition.  You don't have to tell the compiler what type your
function is, it just does it on its own.  A function which is not well-
typed is almost always a function that doesn't work.

> I'm not really facile in Haskell, ML, Mercury, etc., but it does seem
> clear to me this would be a solid way to express many kinds of models.
> It would be great to work with an expert in functional programming in
> order to get something *good* working (OTOH, I could probably get
> *something* working).  I don't think it is especially important to
> co-evolve the language infrastructure with the high level semantics.
> I think figuring out well-defined-vocabularies can be facilitated with
> an XML/DTD like approach, independently.

It wouldn't be too difficult to map from XML/DTD data to a functional 
interface.

> Hmm, even C functions can take functions as arguments.  As a practical
> matter, higher order functions in Lisp are easier to use and more
> flexible than higher order functions in C because introducing new
> functions is so lightweight.
> 
But you can't manipulate the functions in C.  That's what makes a
language
higher-order.

-Rod


                  ==================================
   Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
   esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
   please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
   body of the message.
                  ==================================