Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!paul
From: paul@cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes (P.A.))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Industry-Strength Rapid Prototyping with Functional Prog?
Message-ID: <417@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 26 Mar 91 01:43:59 GMT
References: <348@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <9309@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: paul@cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 38

In <9309@castle.ed.ac.uk> sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) writes:

>paul@cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes (P.A.)) writes:

>>...  made a prerequisite for our advanced-level (3rd year)
>>Software Engineering project, the grounds being that FP (and LP) are good for
>>Rapid Prototyping.

>>PLEASE can anyone supply me with examples/references to

>This is interesting.  Why do you think that functional programming is
>good for this sort of thing if you cannot quote evidence from which you
>have concluded that it is good for this sort of thing (apart from
>faith---halleluja praise the Lord (Alonzo Church in this case I
>suppose)). 

AMAZING! It sounds as if you are saying that the only legitimate
grounds for advocating some technique etc. are its prior (satisfactory)
uses. How then may someone advocate something innovative? I'm
sorry if I have misunderstood you, but your posting is open to this
sort of interpretation.

>I do not blame your colleagues for being unconvinced.  Deciding
>arbitararily that something is the case, and then looking for evidence
>to support that proposition is not exactly good methodology. 

Who's decided something arbitrarily? There are criteria other than
experience for assessing the merits of a technique (but then, what
you said above leaves open the possibility that you disagree).

>Sean

>P.S.  This is not a criticism of functional programming, just a
>criticism of a suspect belief system.

To what ``belief system'' do you refer?

Paul Bailes