Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>There's no simple answer to that question, but here are some things to consider:</p> <p>Haskell and OCaml are both mature languages with strong implementations. Actually, there are multiple good implementations of Haskell, but I don't think that's a major point in its favor for your purpose.</p> <p>F# is much younger, and who can predict where Microsoft will decide to take it? How you feel about that depends more on how you feel about Microsoft than anything anyone can tell you about programming languages.</p> <p>OCaml (or ML in general), is a good practical language choice that supports doing cool functional stuff without forcing you to work in a way that might be uncomfortable. You get the full benefit of things like algebraic data types, pattern matching, type inference, and everybody else's favorite stuff. Oh, and objects.</p> <p>Haskell gives you all that (except objects, pretty much), but also more or less forces you to rethink everything you think you know about programming. This might be a very good thing, if you're looking to learn something new, but it might be more than you want to bite off. I say this as someone who is only maybe halfway along the path to being a productive, happy Haskell programmer.</p> <p>Both OCaml and Haskell are being used to write lots of different kinds of programs, not just compilers and AI or whatever. Google is your friend.</p> <p>One last note: OCaml gives you hashtable, but it's hardly sensible to use it in code if you really want to embrace functional programming. Persistent trees (like Data.Map) are really the right solution for Haskell, and have lots of nice properties, which is one of the cool things to learn about when you pick up Haskell.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POShould I learn Haskell or F# if I already know OCaml?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. USMoss Prescott
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COBut the problem is that I would rather have O(1) access. O(log n) access for a large set is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you have a persistent tree, because you can sure have a persistent hash table.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USUnknown
    2. COIf you just want O(1) because it sounds good, then as another poster said feel free to use a hashtable in Haskell, even though it's not a great fit. My point was that a language with lazy evaluation and no side-effects really begs for persistent data structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure). This is a powerful idea and worth some study and reflection. In my opinion this is more important than O(1) vs. O(log n), and it's certainly more important than somebody's random timing exercise. Say it with me: "micro-benchmarks are evil!"
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USMoss Prescott
    3. CO@Moss, unfortunately, I have run into plenty of situations where the difference between O(k) and O(log n) where k is from 1-20 and n is in the hundreds of thousands. I quite seriously doubt that "persistent data structure" is a legitimate excuse for not having a decent hash table. If you can have persistent trees, why not have persistent hash tables?
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USUnknown
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload