what's the point of FP if processors are still Von Neumann?

You are shooting yourself in the foot by thinking in a manner inconsistent with the computer.

Bow down to C, you smug lisp weenies.

What's the point of C++ if class methods are still mangled to ordinary C procedures?

What's the point of device drivers if devices still use the old interface underneath?

What's the point of vector graphics if monitors are still pixelated?

One day punch card machines will return and FP will be the king again!

>>3
So typical of a FPfag to respond to a question with a question like they're Yoda

How would one go about designing an FP friendly processor? An FP friendly assembly language?

>>5
What's the point of using any language besides assembly if they still get compiled to assembly?

You are shooting yourself in the foot by thinking in a manner inconsistent with the compiler.

>>6
You input punch cards from 1 direction and ``the program'' outputs another one from the other end. It uses immutable data as well, probably wet dream of haskell users.

>>4
#MakeFPGreatAgain

>>6
Check out the Reduceron <https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/reduceron/>. It implements graph reduction in an FPGA leveraging block RAM to reduce latency.

>>10
I'm afraid you cannot implement a dubs checking microcode routine on it due to limitations of FPGA.

>>11
I just did, it gave me your post has 79% probability of having dubs.

Only Lisps and other ``interpreted'' languages take advantage of the Von Neumann architecture.
If it doesn't have eval, it doesn't need a Von Neumann machine.

I get it. The FP attitude to programming and computers is they hate them. They don't understand why there should be some sort of calculating machine, and why they should pay attention to its lowly details such as memory consumption and what evaluates how many times. They don't believe software engineering should be a profession. The FP approach to computing is they should be able to express themselves in the language of pure mathematics and some magical jinn should just jump out and give them any answer they ask.

Computer Science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes
--said by some obscure professor, probably still using a pentium4

What's the point of floating point?

>>14
Academics used to respect computers and programming. Efficiency was highly regarded.

"Functional programming" is responsible for the dumbing down of computer science.

They stopped teaching the mathematical reasoning behind traditional programming, thinking it would push students towards the "more mathematical" functional languages. Instead, it turned them into code monkeys who have no idea what they're doing and no understanding of the concepts they use.

>>17
No, they never respected computers and programming. The Backus paper "Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?" is dated 1977.

is responsible for the dumbing down of computer science

In their minds, there shouldn't even be a "computer science". Algorithmics? Sure. Algebra? Yep. Those are sound areas of math. This weird thing with "pointers", "data structures" and "classes"? No way. What do you mean I can't substitute an expression with the one it equals? "Side effects"? Pointers getting mutated? We can't be bothered with this unmathematical shit, it should be just automated away.

Every FP innovation from garbage collection to lazy evaluation to immutability-based parallelism has been aimed at reducing the skill and knowledge level necessary to be a programmer, which led to code monkeys who don't understand the computer because they don't need to. Whether that is good or bad depends on a choice of perspective but one thing is certain: nobody hates programmers and has done more to destroy the profession than the FP crowd.

Are you retards seriously comparing academia circlejerkers with fucking currynigger code monkeys? Both are indeed despicable, but nobody is as bad as the latter.

>>17
protip: functional programming is modelled after the mathematical reasoning

>>19
Haskell will pave the way for hordes of curryniggers the likes of which you've never seen.

>>18

No, they never respected computers and programming. The Backus paper "Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?" is dated 1977.

Backus wrote an advertising piece about his new idea which went nowhere and here you are 39 years later, treating his failed experiments like the word of God.

Even other ``academic circlejerkers'' didn't understand his FP or the ideas behind it and made lambda calculus systems instead.

>>19
The ``academia circlejerkers'' created the ``fucking currynigger code monkeys'' by not teaching properly.

>>23
It's like you're ignoring the existence of Indian institutes, EXTREME CODING ROCKSTAR CAMPS and shitty Java/web apping MOOCs altogether.

FP is useful if you want to do calculations with a range much bigger than the precision. It's not "inconsistent", it's just as exact as integer maths but has different rules.

>>25
I thought the talk was about functional programming, not floating point.

>>26
These things happen when you have overloading in English.

>>25
lel take it easy on the estrogen replacement therapy, bro

>>22
Haskell is proof that his idea didn't go "nowhere", buddy.

>>30
Haskell is proof that even PhDs completely misunderstood what he wrote about.

The creation of Haskell-like languages had nothing to do with Backus's FP at all. They just rode the hype. The languages that led to Haskell existed before he wrote that paper.

In the paper, he contrasts FP with ``lambda-calculus based systems'', which you would know if you ever actually read it.

>>31
Haskell is proof that even PhDs completely misunderstood what >>31 wrote about.

The Von Neumann architecture is a poor approximation of computer science from the days when bit flips were an actual mechanism physically being flipped around.
``Computer'' was coined to refer to a human with a degree in mathematics performing computations, and I am pretty sure they didn't come with BIOS or a front-side bus.
Functional programming is the application of computer science. All other programming is a bit-flipping compromise.

>>32
Bit flips still are physical, you think electrons moving around aren't an actual mechanism?

>>33
Are electrons mechanical? No. Fucking off.

>>34
That isn't what that means. Circuits are physics, dolt.

>>35
It means what I fucking meant. That's what what I said means, you insolent shit.
Define 'mechanical computer'. Now define 'CPU'. Which of those is mechanical, and which of those describes a core component of what is contemporarily known as a computer?

>>35
Now are you going to address my fucking point or just argue the semantics of one inconsequential sixth of one sentence?

>>36
Mechanism does not imply that something is mechanical you subhuman Slav shithead.

>>37
No.

>>38
Are you fucking deaf, you eye-shitted cuntburger? I said it meant what I meant it to say.
Google "electron mechanism" you wheel-toed fistpisser. What comes up but a bunch of crapbollocks about chemistry! Nothing at all about circuitry. Ignoring the fact entirely that electrons are too fucking small to see, and any mechanical effects around them are inferred and never observed.
Get back on the butt train that threw you over here and stop wasting my time wrongly whinging about what electrons are, you kilt-shitted gourdfucking manrammer shitcannon whelp.

>>39
I am deaf in fact.