Why Functional? Why Haskell? Or more precisely, why is this discussion centered around some mainstream imperative language? Imperative languages have had a long and colored history, and current popular imperative languages are based on a solid foundation of lessons learned over the last several decade. The domain of imperative languages is mature, and well known. It is precisely this knowledge that tells us why it is difficult to write fault free code in imperative languages. Side effects within a program is when the outcome of a function or procedure is based on something other than the parameters passed to it. This is usually reflective of the program state and can be as simple as a global variable or flag. But this ‘side effect’ renders the function or procedure just a little less deterministic and a little less knowable in operation. Code that is written without side effects is known as ‘pure code’, and most functional languages are for the most part based on pure code. Haskell is considered to be a pure language, but for practical reasons supports both side effects and imperative constructs (encapsulated in Monads). Since most of the code in a Haskell program is pure, there is no concept of program flow or state within this code. This means that statements (or statement blocks) can be re-ordered arbitrarily without impact. It also means that a compiler can be very aggressive about condensing, short-circuiting and otherwise optimizing code within a given statement. To summarize, side effects exist in all useful languages, but are explicitly contained (and discouraged) in functional language, and exhibit fewer related faults. In contrast, side effects are encouraged as a methodology for programming in imperative languages (e... ... middle of paper ... ...of faults in imperative languages, and there is a great deal of evidence showing that faults are also somewhat proportional to the number of lines of code. If our goal is to develop methods to developing code with fewer faults, these characteristics show that functional languages are a solid foundation to build this approach. The easy part of this question is ‘why Haskell’, and can be dismissed quickly. Haskell was chosen as the most mature of the modern functional languages. Although most functional languages are based on pure code, it is necessary reality that useful code requires support for side effects, state and program flow. Haskell has addressed that need and provides support for these capabilities through encapsulation in Monads. By measures of active community and large projects, Haskell is arguably one of the most successful of the functional languages.
Sometimes within the Functional analysis, creating a testing situation leaves out something small, but crucial piece of information, that occurs within the natural surroundings (perhaps the kid most effective desires a green train). That is an extremely good instance of whilst different sources of statistics along with descriptive tests, direct commentary, and interviews are useful in reporting more information to make the testing situations seem real or help with treatment selections. Some other difficulty, is a Functional analysis may additionally produce a transient increase in problem behavior. “The problem behavior may maintain or take place more regularly if the evaluation is ended before the suitable behavior is taught. To avoid this, we end the analysis as soon as we've got sufficient records to teach us something about the behavior” (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003).
Fodor begins his article on the mind-body problem with a review of the current theories of dualism and materialism. According to dualism, the mind and body are two separate entities with the body being physical and the mind being nonphysical. If this is the case, though, then there can be no interaction between the two. The mind could not influence anything physical without violating the laws of physics. The materialist theory, on the other hand, states that the mind is not distinct from the physical. In fact, supporters of the materialist theory believe that behavior does not have mental causes. When the materialist theory is split into logical behaviorism and the central-state identity theory, the foundation of functionalism begins to form. Logical behaviorism states that every mental feeling has the same meaning as an if-then statement. For example, instead of saying "Dr. Lux is hungry," one would say "If there was a quart of macadamia brittle nut in the freezer, Dr. Lux would eat it." The central-state identity theory states that a certain mental state equals a certain neurophysiological state. The theory works in a way similar to Berkeley’s representation of objects. Both mental states and objects are a certain collection of perceptions that together identify the particular state or object.
Functionalism agrees that brain states are responsible for mental states, but disagrees that they are identical with them. To do this, functionalists argue that neurological states or brain activity help to realize mental states, which then lead to behavior. This argument proposes that brain states are "low level" activities that help realize "high level" mental states.
In this paper I will explain and argue for functionalism. Functionalism is another form of mind-body physicalism, it accepts that many of our mental concepts are defined partly in terms of behavior and stimuli. What caused the rise of functionalism is the multiple realization theory. This theory objects to the identity theory because humans are able to feel pain due to a stimulus response in the ACC. Other animals and organisms are able to also feel pain because pain in their brains can be detected in different regions that are different from a human brain. The basic idea of functionalism is that our minds are organized in a functional way. The roles are defined by how we respond to a certain stimuli such as pain. Pain causes body damage,
Jackson, F., and Pettit, P., 1990, 'Program Explanation: a general perspective', Analysis, vol. 50, pp. 107-117.
Stephen Priest in Theories of Mind Chapter 5 describes functionalism as 'the theory that being in a mental state is being in a functional state' and adds that 'functionalism is, in a sense, an attempt to bypass the mind-body problem'. What does this definition really mean? An analogy might clarify the situation.
According to Ned Block, Functionalism is concerned with finding the answer to the question (“what are mental states?”), ("What are mental states?”) One of the features of the functionalism is that it sees each form of mental state as being a state which includes the tendency to behave in particular ways in addition to possessing particular mental states.
As a result a huge number of organisations have become software dependent. Some of these systems are used to safeguard the lives of many people. This means that if these systems were to fail they could lead to devastating consequences. Here are some examples of where software systems are used heavily and could be very dangerous if they were to fail - aviation, hospitals, space exploration, nuclear power stations and communications. I will be looking at some examples of actual software failure in these fields to explain the reasons why systems fail.2.0 Reasons for Systems FailureIf software systems failure can be so dangerous why can they not be completely eliminated? According to Parnas, "The main reason is that software can never be guaranteed to be 100% reliable.
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
In social science, Functionalism is the theory that put pressure on the dependence of the patterns and institutions of our society and her interaction by preserving her cultural and society unity. In Sociology, functionalism came from the sociologist EMILE DURKHEIM, who viewed our society as a sort of “ORGANISM” that brings with it certain “needs” that must be complete. The American sociologist Talcott Parsons analysed very extensive societies with regards to their social order, integration and stability.
The Ada language is the result of the most extensive and most expensive language design effort ever undertaken. The United States Department of Defense (DoD) was concerned in the 1970¡¦s by the number of different programming languages being used for its projects, some of which were proprietary and/or obsolete. Up until 1974, half of the applications at the DoD were embedded systems. An embedded system is one where the computer hardware is embedded in the device it controls. More than 450 programming languages were used to implement different DoD projects, and none of them were standardized. As a result of this, software was rarely reused. For these reasons, the Army, Navy, and Air Force proposed to develop a high-level language for embedded systems (The Ada Programming Language). In 1975 the Higher Order Language Working Group (HOLWG) was formed with the intent of reducing this number by finding or creating a programming language generally suitable for the department's requirements.
The software crisis of the 1980’s is a clear example of what using inappropriate programming techniques in software development can cause. Even though tools and techniques have advanced, a software crisis can still occur if no programming techniques are used or used incorrectly.
There are many criticisms of functionalism and their theories: Ø Functionalist ideas almost portray humans as being autonomous and that only socialisation determines our lives. They do not really see humans as the unpredictable creatures they are, not possible to stray away from the predictable ideas that functionalists have of people. Too much stress is placed on harmony and the potential for conflict and its affects are generally ignored. Ø There is no recognition of difference by class, region or ethnic group. The functionalist picture is simply reflective of happy middle-class American families.
Software engineering was suggested at a NATO conference in 1968 to talk about the software crisis. “Software crisis” was the name give to problems encountered in the development of large and complex systems . In the early 1970s, notions of structured programming started coming up. In the late 1970s, early