|
|
|
|
|
|
by still_grokking
1323 days ago
|
|
|
Oh, another "FP". Nice one! This time much less weird as the last one I've seen. :-) http://www.fp-system.org/ Maybe the authors like to connect? As I'm here maybe someone can explain something I didn't found an answer until now: How does FP relate to data-flow languages? "Classical" data-flow languages are quite different on the surface but fundamentally their inner workings look like data-processing pipelines. FP expression also look like data-processing pipelines… How is this related? Also, if the fundamental paradigm would be data-flow, why nobody designed a (functional) HW description language around that? It would be a perfect match I guess because hardware is all about signals flowing though processing elements! (Something like Haskell's Clash is imho a worse fit as the fundamental semantic of Haskell isn't data-flow; using lazy lambda calculus to model HW doesn't look like a proper fit; there's a quite large "impedance mismatch" you need to bridge first). |
|
|