From: Gustavo Guerra (gustavobt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-28 14:39:50
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mat Marcus" <mmarcus_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: <vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden]>; <alexy_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: [boost] Books for MetaProgrammers: ML, Haskell, Scheme
> I know that a number of metaprogrammers are interested in functional
> programming. Czarnecki and Eisnecker's book provides excellent
> perspective, characterizing templates as a functional programming
> language. Many metaprogrammers agree that it is desirable to delve
> deeper into a study of functional programming idioms.
>
> Here are some questions regarding functional programming literature:
>
> * Is it better to spend time studying Haskell, ML, or Scheme? Which
> is closer in spirit to template metaprogramming? That is, which book
> will pay higher dividends for compile time C++ idioms: Haskell: The
> Craft of Functional Programming, ML for the Working Programmer, or
> Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programming? Perhaps
> Peyton-Jones's book or another would be most useful.
>
And what about Common LISP?
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"
WOW. That was the book I used 2 years ago to learn Scheme on the 1st
semestre, 1st year of my Computer and Software Engineering undergraduate.
Come on, I'm supposed to be the
_beginner_guy_that_only_tries_to_understand_what_these_guys_are_talking_abou
t_ and you guys the Pros that talk on conferences, write great books and
publish on magazines. I find it very hard to beleive that people like Andrei
Alexandrescu, Aleksey Gurtovoy, Vesa Karvonen and others don't have
experience in functional programming.
Gustavo Guerra