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: <506@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 29 Mar 91 23:20:50 GMT
References: <348@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <9309@castle.ed.ac.uk> <417@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <9343@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: paul@cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 32

In <9343@castle.ed.ac.uk> sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) writes:

>..............

>One might say:

>`Perhaps functional programming languages are a good tool for
>prototyping software, certainly my personal experience on small programs
>suggests that they *might* be.  I will run some experiments to see if my
>intuition is good and this is really true.'

>Or one might say:

>`I have seen described/worked on several projects where functional
>programming languages were used more effectively than other approaches
>that I have seen/used for developing prototypes of software'.

>But one would not say:

>`I was told by someone once that functional programming languages are
>good for rapid prototyping.  Let's rearrange the syllabus of the computer
>science course on this basis.'

Very good, and all true. What's not true is the possible implication that the
final, ``would not say'' position is a position that I hold. What makes you
think I do, if at all? Who would be so unprofessional?

Paul Bailes

(PS apologies to other readers for all this, but S Matthews' public
comments require a public response. Thanks to all those who have
answered my RFI - please keep them coming. PB)