borm (15) [Avatar] Offline
#1
I've read a good part of the book and have enjoyed it very much. I took a few notes along the way that I wanted to share with you.

Before I forget, typo on page 76: If you compare the code with the previous C# implementation you can see that there >> is << a large number of similarities.

In section 2.5.3, you describe a number of popular functional languages. Earlier in the chapter, OCaml is mentioned as a major influence on F#, but then there is no description of it in this list of popular languages. That struck me as an oversight.

Finally, the phase "Mathematical Purity" comes up repeatedly in the text; it seems a little out of place for a "real world" programming book. It might be worth including a paragraph or two explaining why the mathematical purity of functional programming languages is important to real world programming.

Thanks for the book!
Tomas Petricek (160) [Avatar] Offline
#2
Re: OCaml, Mathematical Purity and a typo
Hi, thanks for sharing your notes! I'm glad you're enjoying the book so far.

>> typo on page 76:
This one has been already fixed by the review Jon Skeet did, but thanks for reporting it!

>> In section 2.5.3, you describe a number of popular functional languages.
We removed this section from chapter 2 (though other programming languages are mentioned in various places somewhere else in the book, so it isn't lost). Anyway, the reason for not mentioning OCaml is that it is very similar to F# and I wanted to point out other interesting directions than the one F# (and OCaml) follow.

>> Mathematical Purity
I think this has been improved a bit during the recent edits as well, but we'll take a look to make sure it is properly explained!

Thanks!
Tomas
borm (15) [Avatar] Offline
#3
Re: OCaml, Mathematical Purity and a typo
> >> In section 2.5.3, you describe a number of popular
> >> functional languages.
> We removed this section from chapter 2 (though other
> programming languages are mentioned in various places
> somewhere else in the book, so it isn't lost).
> Anyway, the reason for not mentioning OCaml is that
> it is very similar to F# and I wanted to point out
> other interesting directions than the one F# (and
> OCaml) follow.

Thanks for the response. What you're saying makes sense, but, at the same time, I'm dissappointed to lose that information. I really liked having those brief language summaries and contrasts all collected together as they were. Also, given the strong similarities between F# and OCaml, I'm now even more interested in hearing about how they contrast with each other.

Without changing what you're doing in the body of the book, perhaps those summaries could be placed together in an appendix. Even if it overlaps with some of the main text of the book, I found the information interesting and useful on its own.

Thanks...Eric
jon.skeet (452) [Avatar] Offline
#4
Re: OCaml, Mathematical Purity and a typo
Would a web page with the appropriate comparisons be okay? I don't know how Tomas would feel about it being in the appendix, but I rather like the idea of keeping the physical book as lean as possible, but having a wide range of resources on the book's web site...

Jon
borm (15) [Avatar] Offline
#5
Re: OCaml, Mathematical Purity and a typo
> Would a web page with the appropriate comparisons be
> okay? I don't know how Tomas would feel about it
> being in the appendix, but I rather like the idea of
> keeping the physical book as lean as possible, but
> having a wide range of resources on the book's web
> site...

Sure, wherever you think it fits best works for me. Mostly I wanted to let you know how useful it was in hopes that the collection of information did not get discarded or dispersed.

Thanks...Eric