I'm writing to ask for some guidance on choosing a language and course of action in learning programming. I apologize if this type of question is inappropriate for Cross Validated, please advise me to another forum if that is the case.
I've seen thread after thread with questions from newbies, asking, "What is the best language to start with?" and then it always starts a flame war or someone just answers, "There's no best language, it's best to pick one and start learning it." My question is a little bit more focused than that.
First off, I've been programming my whole life, in very limited capacities. My deepest training was in C++. Whilst in my EECS degree program, I resolved to never be a software developer because I couldn't stand not interacting with people for such long periods of time. Instead I realized I wanted to be a math teacher, and so that is the path I have taken.
But now that I'm well down that path, I've started to realize that perhaps I could develop my own software to help me in the classroom. If I want to demonstrate the Euclidean algorithm, what better way than to have a piece of software that breaks down the process? Students could run that software as part of their studies, and the advanced students might even develop programs for themselves. Or, with an Ipad in hand, why not have an app that lets students take their own attendance? It would certainly streamline some of the needs of classroom management.
There's obviously a lot of great stuff already out there for math, and for education, but I want a way to more directly create things specific to my lectures. If I'm teaching a specific way of calculating a percent, I want to create an app that aligns with my teaching style, not just another calculator app that requires the student to learn twice.
The most I use in class right now is iWork Numbers/Microsoft Excel for my stats class. Students can learn the basic statistical functions, and turn some of their data into graphs.
I have dabbled a bit with R, and used Maple in college. I've started the basic tutorials for OS X/iOS development and have actually made good progress making an OS X app that takes a text string, converts it to numbers, and performs encryption using modular addition and multiplication. I sometimes use Wolfram|Alpha to save myself some time in getting quick solutions to equations or base conversions. I know of MatLab, Mathematica, and recently people have been telling me to check into Python or Ruby. I also know basic HTML, and while it's forgotten now, learned Javascript and PERL in college.
If I keep on the path of Obj-C/Cocoa, I think it will have great benefits. Unfortunately, anything I produced for Mac would only be usable on a Mac, so it wouldn't be universal for all of my students. Perhaps then learning a web language would be better. Second, I'm wondering if the primary use is mathematical, then perhaps my time would be better spent learning Mathematica Programming Language, or R, or something based less on GUI and more on simple coding of algorithms, maybe Python or Ruby?
It seems that Mathematica already has a lot of demos for different math concepts, so why reinvent the wheel is also a question I have. I think overall, it would be good to have more control and design things the way I need. And then, if I do want to make an "Attendance" app or something else, I would already have the programming experience to more easily design something for my iPad or MacBook.
The related question to this is what is a good language to teach to my students? In his TED talk, Conrad Wolfram says one of the best ways to check the understanding of a student is have them write a program. But if Mathematica does the math virtually automatically for them, then I'm not sure that will get the deeper experience of working out logic for themselves, like you do when you're writing C, or a traditional procedural language.
I know that programming takes time to learn, but I also know that at this point, my goal is not to be able to make an app like "Tiny Wings." With the app store ease, some of my work may be an extra revenue stream, but I see myself as more of a hobbyist, and now teacher looking to software development specifically for its ability to help me demonstrate mathematical concepts.
I think I will push ahead with Obj-C/Cocoa for OSX/iOS, but if anyone has some better guidance regarding all of the other available stuff, it would be much appreciated. I don't think I would want to go fully to the web (I like apps), but perhaps someone could suggest a nice way of bridging what I produce in XCode to a universal web version. For example, if you come up with an algorithm in obj-c is it easiest to transition that to ruby and run it online, or is there another approach that works better?
Mathematica is pretty awesome for the first part of your question. I've used the interactive mode (Manipulate[]) for explaining things to my colleges (and myself). It makes really nice dynamic figures and is fairly expressive (although your code can end up looking like line noise). It is very powerful, but it does far less for you than you might think. It's pretty intuitive, which is a good thing for teaching.
You could use Scala if you want an "easy" way to make a domain specific language for teaching. Python seems to confuse people as a first programming language. Objective C seems like a completely random choice to me.
Mathematica then. It's worth the price. But anything that is interpreted and has an interactive shell is probably better than a compiled language. BBC BASIC?
Nothing beats Haskell for general-purpose mathematical programming. The wiki's quite extensive and the IRC channel (#haskell on Freenode) is great for asking questions. If you statically link your binaries on compilation, you should be able to run your programs on just about any system (with a few exceptions, e.g., libgmp).
Haskell code reads (roughly) like mathematical notation once you get the hang of it, so it can really help to tie things together for your students who are motivated to write their own programs. The purely functional style can be beneficial, as well, since it focuses less on I/O and the marshalling of data (perfectly useful in applications, perhaps less so in pure math), and more on the actual creation and refinement of functions and algorithms. You can even compose functions just as you would on paper.
If you want to get really serious, you could also look into Coq or Agda, but those might be a bit much for most classes.
For a Haskell program idea for an educator, check out this link.
A nice list of arguments can also be found at:
Eleven Reasons to use Haskell as a Mathematician and the book The Haskell Road to Logic, Maths and Programming
Related
I have been programming in a "learn-by-doing" fashion for almost 2 years now and I consider myself fairly good however, I really wish to build a good foundation of Computer Science/Computer Engineering and most people recommend I start off with SICP. (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)
I wished to know
Is this the best way to go about it?
I know how to code a matrix-multiplication in OpenMP and MPI and I know college level math, is this sufficient to read and appreciate SICP?
Instead of this, can I just spend all my time working on Project Euler instead?
A personal experience: Like you I am trying to learn programming by self-study and I started off with SICP. As I am a ancient historian and archaeologist, I have no background in maths, engineering or real computer science (just good knowlegde in stuff like LaTeX, HTML and CSS). My last lessons in math are now 15 years ago. Although I am working through SICP with a math book at my side the explanations given in SICP are really sufficient to understand the stuff. I really appreciate SICP, it is demanding, but great fun. I also would recommend to buy it as a book, I prefer that from reading on screen.
Sometimes you have to cope with some difficulties because language standards have changed (eg. Running SICP Pattern Matching Rule Based Substitution Code) or the authors assume existing functions which are just defined later in the book (eg. How do I get the functions put and get in SICP, Scheme, Exercise 2.78 and on). As a you always will find solutions or hints on the web this is nothing which should bother you.
If you know any amount of programming you'll likely be better off for it, but it's by no means a requirement when going through the SICP. I'm going through it right now (cover to cover style), and I'm up too section 2.3.3. The biggest road block for me has been how maths based some of the problems can be, as it's been a while since I did maths back in high school. For these problems I've resorted to googling an explanation of the problem and solution. Like programming, maths isn't a requirement either, obviously because I'm still making progress through the book, but I feel it could help at times.
The only requirement you'll honestly need, is a computer and a scheme implementation, I'd recommend MIT scheme or DrRacket.
TL;DR
The only requirement you'll need is a computer, and a scheme implementation, everything else can be learned as you go along.
I am currently considering writing a small game. It is essentially a map where you can zoom out and in, and in certain places click on info boxes where, at some point, I hope to integrate minigames. Granted, game might be overstating it. Think of it as an interactive map. The theme is how mathematics can be applied in peoples every day life to raise awareness on the usefullness of mathematics.
The question is how I as fast as possible can make a reasonable prototype. If I recieve enough positive response on this I might try to code "the real thing" and use the prototype to obtain funding.
However, I am at a crossroad. I want something to work rather fast and have some C++ experience coding optimization problems, mainly in c-style. I am not convienced, though, that coding it in C++ is the fast way to obtain a prototype. Though I have some experience coding in C++, but have no experience in coding any sort of GUI.
As I see it there is a number of possibilites:
C++, possibly using some library, such as boost or ???.
Start out purely webbased, using e.g. HTML 5 and java.
Python
C#/.NET
Others, such as?
I have to admit I have little experience with anything besides C++ and the STL.
So my question to this wonderful forum is basically, is there a language that provides a significant advantage? Also, any additional insight or comments is more than welcome!
Python is a simpler language than C++, and for prototyping it will help you focus on the task at hand. You can use Pygame, a game library built on the excellent cross-platform SDL library. It provides 2D graphics, input, and audio mixing features. SDL is mainly a C library (and thus compatible with C++), and there are a number of very useful libraries that integrate with it:
SDL_image for loading images in various formats
SDL_ttf for rendering text using TrueType fonts
SDL_mixer for audio mixing
SDL_net for networking
SDL_gfx for graphics drawing primitives
So if you prototype in Python using Pygame, there is a reasonable chance you’ll be able to port what you make over to C++ with minimal hassle, if and when you choose to do so.
Possible options:
Go with what you know the best. Anything else will require a learning curve, which may be weeks to months long. If you're willing to take that road in order to make your prototype, then there are some really great tools available.
BlitzBasic is a good way to go, and is basically designed to be for games
I've done little games in Java using Slick2D - but you'll need good grounding in object-oriented coding to work effectively in Java. If you've got that from C++, then you can see a tech demo I built in Slick2D called Pedestrians. It's open source, and has demo videos here.
You might also ask your question on https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ - a Q/A site dedicated to game programming
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I haven't taken any math classes above basic college calculus. However, in the course of my programming work, I've picked up a lot of math and comp sci from blogs and reading, and I genuinely believe I have a decent mathematical mind. I enjoy and have success doing Project Euler, for example.
I want to dive in and really start learning some cool math, particularly discrete mathematics, set theory, graph theory, number theory, combinatorics, category theory, lambda calculus, etc.
My impression so far is that I'm well equipped to take these on at a conceptual level, but I'm having a really hard time with the mathematical language and symbols. I just don't "speak the language" and though I'm trying to learn it, I'm the going is extremely slow. It can take me hours to work through even one formula or terminology heavy paragraph. And yeah, I can look up terms and definitions, but it's a terribly onerous process that very much obscures the theoretical simplicity of what I'm trying to learn.
I'm really afraid I'm going to have to back up to where I left off, get a mid-level math textbook, and invest some serious time in exercises to train myself in that way of thought. This sounds amazingly boring, though, so I wondered if anyone else has any ideas or experience with this.
If you don't want to attend a class, you still need to get what the class would have given you: time in the material and lots of practice.
So, grab that text book and start doing the practice problems. There really isn't any other way (unless you've figured out how osmosis can actually happen...).
There is no knowledge that can only be gained in a classroom.
Check out the MIT Courseware for Mathematics
Also their YouTube site
Project Euler is also a great way to think about math as it relates to programming
Take a class at your local community college. If you're like me you'd need the structure. There's something to be said for the pressure of being graded. I mean there's so much to learn that going solo is really impractical if you want to have more than just a passing nod-your-head-mm-hmm sort of understanding.
Sounds like you're in the same position I am. What I'm finding out about math education is that most of it is taught incorrectly. Whether a cause or result of this, I also find most math texts are written incorrectly. Exceptions are rare, but notable. For instance, anything written by Donald Knuth is a step in the right direction.
Here are a couple of articles that state the problem quite clearly:
A Gentle Introduction To Learning
Calculus
Developing Your Intuition For
Math
And here's an article on a simple study technique that aims at retaining knowledge:
Teaching linear algebra
Consider auditing classes in discrete mathematics and proofs at a local university. The discrete math class will teach you some really useful stuff (graph theory, combinatorics, etc.), and the proofs class will teach you more about the mathematical style of thinking and writing.
I'd agree with #John Kugelman, classes are the way to go to get it done properly but I'd add that if you don't want to take classes, the internet has many resources to help you, including recorded lectures which I find can be more approachable than books and papers.
I'd recommend checking out MIT Open Courseware. There's a Maths for Computer Science module there, and I'm enjoying working through Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra course of video lectures.
Youtube and videolectures.com are also good resources for video lectures.
Finally, there's a free Maths for CS book at bookboon.
To this list I would now add The Haskel Road to Logic, Maths, and Programming, and Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories.
--- Nov 16 '09 answer for posterity--
Two books. Diestel's Graph Theory, and Knuth's Concrete Mathematics. Once you get the hang of those try CAGES.
Find a good mentor who is an expert in the field who is willing to spend time with you on a regular basis.
There is a sort of trick to learning dense material, like math and mathematical CS. Learning unfamiliar abstract stuff is hard, and the most effective way to do it is to familiarize yourself with it in stages. First, you need to skim it: don't worry if you don't understand everything in the first pass. Then take a break; after you have rested, go through it again in more depth. Lather, rinse, repeat; meditate, and eventually you may become enlightened.
I'm not sure exactly where I'd start, to become familiar with the language of mathematics; I just ended up reading through lots of papers until I got better at it. You might look for introductory textbooks on formal mathematical logic, since a lot of math (especially in language theory) is based off of that; if you learn to hack the formal stuff a bit, the everyday notation might look a bit easier.
You should probably look through books on topics you're personally interested in; the inherent interest should help get you over the hump. Also, make sure you find texts that are actually introductory; I have become wary of slim, undecorated hardbacks labeled Elementary Foobar Theory, which tend to be elementary only to postdocs with a PhD in Foobar.
A word of warning: do not start out with category theory -- it is the most boring math I have ever encountered! Due to its relevance to language design and type theory, I would like to know more about it, but so far I have not been able to deal...
For a nice, scattershot intro to bits of many kinds of CS-ish math, I recommend Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadter (if you haven't read it already, of course). It's not a formal math book, though, so it won't help you with the familiarity problem, but it is quite inspirational.
Mathematical notation is is akin to several computer languages:
concise
exacting
based on many idioms
a fair amount of local variations and conventions
As with a computer language, you don't need to "wash the whole elephant at once": take it one part a at time.
A tentative plan for you could be
identify areas of mathematics that are interesting or important to you. (seems you already have a bit of a sense for that, CS has helped you develop quite a culture for it.)
take (or merely audit) a few formal classes in this area. I agree with several answers in this post, an in-person course, at local college is preferable, but, maybe at first, or to be sure to get the most of a particular class, first self-teaching yourself in this area with MIT OCW, similar online resources and associated books is ok/fine.
if an area of math introduces too high of a pre-requisite in terms of fluency with notation or with some underlying concept or (most often mechanical computation and transformation techniques). No problem! Just backtrack a bit, learn these foundations (and just these foundations!) and move forward again.
Find a "guru", someone that has a broad mathematical culture and exposure, not necessarily a mathematician, physics folks are good too, indeed they can often articulate math in a more practical fashion. Use this guru to guide you, as he/she can show you how the big pieces fit together.
Note: There is little gain to be had of learning mathematical notation for its own sake. Rather it should be learned in context, just like say a C# idiom is better memorized when used and when associated with a specific task, rather than learned in vacuo. A related SO posting however provides several resources to decipher and learn mathematical notation
Project Euler takes problems out of context and drops them in for people to solve them. Project Euler cannot teach you anything effectively. I think you should forget about it, if it is popular it does not mean anything. You cannot study Mathematics through Project Euler as it contains only bits and pieces(and some pretty high level pieces) that you're supposed to know in order to solve the problems. Learning mathematics means to consider a subject and a read a book about it and solving exercices or reading solutions, that's how you learn math. If it so happens that through your reading you find something that is close to some project euler thing, your luck , but otherwise Project euler is a complete waste of time. I think the time is much better invested choosing a particular branch of mathematics and studying that. Let me explain why: I solved 3 pretty advanced Projec Euler problems and they were all making appeal to knowledge from Number theory which I happened to have because i studies some part of it. I do not think Iearned anything from Project Euler, it just happened that I already knew some number theory and solved the problems.
For example, if you find out you like number theory, take H. Davenport -> Hardy & Wright -> Kenneth & Rosen's , study those.
If you like Graph Theory take Reinhard Diestel's book which is freely available and study that(or check books.google.com and find whichever is more appropriate to your taste) but don't spread your attention in 999999 directions just because Project Euler has problems ranging from dynamic programming to advanced geometry or to advanced number theory, that is clearly the wrong way to go and it will not bring you closer to your goal.
This sounds amazingly boring
Well ... Mathematics is not boring when you find some problem that you are attached to, which you like and you'd like to find the solution to, and when you have the sufficient time to reflect on it while not behind a computer screen. Mathematics is done with pen and paper mostly(yes you can use computers .. but that's not really the point).
So, if you find a real-world problem, or some programming problem that would benefit from
you knowing some advanced maths, and you know what maths you have to study , it can be motivating to learn in that way.
If you feel you are not motivated it is hard to study properly.
There is also the question of what you actually mean when you say learn. Does the learning process stop after you solved the problems at the end of the chapter of a book ? Well you decide. You can consider you have finished learning that subject, or you can consider you have not finished and read more about it. There are entire books on just one equation and variations of it.
The amount of programming-related math that you can learn without formal training is limited, but it's more than enough. But maybe you can self-teach yourself.
It all boils down to your resources and motivation.
To know mathematics you have to do mathematics not programming(project euler).
For beginning to learn category theory I recommend David Spivak's Category Theory for the Sciences (AKA Category Theory for Scientists) because its relatively comprehensible due to many examples that enable understanding by analogy and which quickly builds a foundation for understanding more abstract concepts.
It requires the ability to reason logically and an intuitive notion of what is a set. It proceeds from sets and functions through basic category theory to adjoint functors, categories of functors, sheaves, monads and an introduction to operads. Two main threads throughout are modeling databases in terms of categories and describing categories with annotated diagrams called ologs. The bibliography provides references to more advanced and specialized topics including recent papers by Dr. Spivak.
An expected outcome from reading this book is the capability of understanding category theory texts and papers written for mathematicians such as Mac Lane's Category Theory for the Working Mathematician.
In PDF format it is available from http://math.mit.edu/~dspivak/teaching/sp13/ (the dynamic version is recommended since its the most recent). The open access HTML version is available from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/category-theory-sciences (which is recommended since it includes additional content including answers to some exercises).
I have been doing object-oriented programming for a few years now, and I have not done much functional programming. I have an interest in flight simulators, and am curious about the functional programming aspect of Lisp. Flight simulators or any other real world simulator makes sense to me in an object-oriented paradigm.
Here are my questions:
Is object oriented the best way to represent a real world simulation domain?
I know that Common Lisp has CLOS (OO for lisp), but my question is really about writing a flight simulator in a functional language. So if you were going to write it in Lisp, would you choose to use CLOS or write it in a functional manner?
Does anyone have any thoughts on coding a flight simulator in lisp or any functional language?
UPDATE 11/8/12 - A similar SO question for those interested -> How does functional programming apply to simulations?
It's a common mistake to think of "Lisp" as a functional language. Really it is best thought of as a family of languages, probably, but these days when people say Lisp they usually mean Common Lisp.
Common Lisp allows functional programming, but it isn't a functional language per se. Rather it is a general purpose language. Scheme is a much smaller variant, that is more functional in orientation, and of course there are others.
As for your question is it a good choice? That really depends on your plans. Common Lisp particularly has some real strengths for this sort of thing. It's both interactive and introspective at a level you usually see in so-called scripting languages, making it very quick to develop in. At the same time its compiled and has efficient compilers, so you can expect performance in the same ballpark as other efficient compilers (with a factor of two of c is typical ime). While a large language, it has a much more consistent design than things like c++, and the metaprogramming capabilities can make very clean, easy to understand code for your particular application. If you only look at these aspects
common lisp looks amazing.
However, there are downsides. The community is small, you won't find many people to help if that's what you're looking for. While the built in library is large, you won't find as many 3rd party libraries, so you may end up writing more of it from scratch. Finally, while it's by no means a walled garden, CL doesn't have the kind of smooth integration with foreign libraries that say python does. Which doesn't mean you can't call c code, there are nice tools for this.
By they way, CLOS is about the most powerful OO system I can think of, but it is quite a different approach if you're coming from a mainstream c++/java/c#/etc. OO background (yes, they differ, but beyond single vs. multiple inh. not that much) you may find it a bit strange at first, almost turned inside out.
If you go this route, you are going to have to watch for some issues with performance of the actual rendering pipeline, if you write that yourself with CLOS. The class system has incredible runtime flexibility (i.e. updating class definitions at runtime not via monkey patching etc. but via actually changing the class and updating instances) however you pay some dispatch cost on this.
For what it's worth, I've used CL in the past for research code requiring numerical efficiency, i.e. simulations of a different sort. It works well for me. In that case I wasn't worried about using existing code -- it didn't exist, so I was writing pretty much everything from scratch anyway.
In summary, it could be a fine choice of language for this project, but not the only one. If you don't use a language with both high-level aspects and good performance (like CL has, as does OCaml, and a few others) I would definitely look at the possibility of a two level approach with a language like lua or perhaps python (lots of libs) on top of some c or c++ code doing the heavy lifting.
If you look at the game or simulator industry you find a lot of C++ plus maybe some added scripting component. There can also be tools written in other languages for scenery design or related tasks. But there is only very little Lisp used in that domain. You need to be a good hacker to get the necessary performance out of Lisp and to be able to access or write the low-level code. How do you get this knowhow? Try, fail, learn, try, fail less, learn, ... There is nothing but writing code and experimenting with it. Lisp is really useful for good software engineers or those that have the potential to be a good software engineer.
One of the main obstacles is the garbage collector. Either you have a very simple one (then you have a performance problem with random pauses) or you have a sophisticated one (then you have a problem getting it working right). Only few garbage collectors exist that would be suitable - most Lisp implementations have good GC implementations, but still those are not tuned for real-time or near real-time use. Exceptions do exist. With C++ you can forget the GC, because there usually is none.
The other alternative to automatic memory management with a garbage collector is to use no GC and manage memory 'manually'. This is used by some (even commercial) Lisp applications that need to support some real-time response (for example process control expert systems).
The nearest thing that was developed in that area was the Crash Bandicoot (and also later games) game for the Playstation I (later games were for the Playstation II) from Naughty Dog. Since they have been bought by Sony, they switched to C++ for the Playstation III. Their development environment was written in Allegro Common Lisp and it included a compiler for a Scheme (a Lisp dialect) variant. On the development system the code gets compiled and then downloaded to the Playstation during development. They had their own 3d engine (very impressive, always got excellent reviews from game magazines), incremental level loading, complex behaviour control for lots of different actors, etc. So the Playstation was really executing the Scheme code, but memory management was not done via GC (afaik). They had to develop all the technology on their own - nobody was offering Lisp-based tools - but they could, because their were excellent software developers. Since then I haven't heard of a similar project. Note that this was not just Lisp for scripting - it was Lisp all the way down.
One the Scheme side there is also a new interesting implementation called Ypsilon Scheme. It is developed for a pinball game - this could be the base for other games, too.
On the Common Lisp side, there have been Lisp applications talking to flight simulators and controlling aspects of them. There are some game libraries that are based on SDL. There are interfaces to OpenGL. There is also something like the 'Open Agent Engine'. There are also some 3d graphics applications written in Common Lisp - even some complex ones. But in the area of flight simulation there is very little prior art.
On the topic of CLOS vs. Functional Programming. Probably one would use neither. If you need to squeeze all possible performance out of a system, then CLOS already has some overheads that one might want to avoid.
Take a look at Functional Reactive Programming. There are a number of frameworks for this in Haskell (don't know about other languages), most of which are based around arrows. The basic idea is to represent relationships between time-varying values and events. So for example you would write (in Haskell arrow notation using no particular library):
velocity <- {some expression of airspeed, heading, gravity etc.}
position <- integrate <- velocity
The second line declares the relationship between position and velocity. The <- arrow operators are syntactic sugar for a bunch of library calls that tie everything together.
Then later on you might say something like:
groundLevel <- getGroundLevel <- position
altitude <- getAltitude <- position
crashed <- liftA2 (<) altitude groundLevel
to declare that if your altitude is less than the ground level at your position then you have crashed. Just as with the other variables here, "crashed" is not just a single value, its a time-varying stream of values. That is why the "liftA2" function is used to "lift" the comparison operator from simple values to streams.
IO is not a problem in this paradigm. Inputs are time varying values such as joystick X and Y, while the image on the screen is simply another time varying value. At the very top level your entire simulator is an arrow from the inputs to the outputs. Then you call a "run" function that converts the arrow into an IO action that runs the game.
If you write this in Lisp you will probably find yourself creating a bunch of macros that basically re-invent arrows, so it might be worth just finding out about arrows to start with.
I don't know anything about flight sims, and you haven't listed anything in particular they consist of, so this is mostly a guess about writing a FS in Lisp.
Why not:
Lisp excels at exploratory programming. I think that since FSs been around so long, and there are free and open-source examples, that it would not benefit as much from this type of programming.
Flight sims are mostly (I'm guessing) written in static, natively compiled languages. If you're looking for pure runtime performance, in Lisp this tends to mean type declarations and other not-so-Lispy constructs. If you don't get the performance you want with naive approaches, your optimized-Lisp might end up looking a lot like C, and Lisp isn't as good at C at writing C.
A lot of a FS, I'm guessing, is interfacing to a graphics library like OpenGL, which is written in C. Depending on how your FFI / OpenGL bindings are, this might, again, make your code look like C-in-Lisp. You might not have the big win that Lisp does in, say, a web app (which consists of generating a tree structure of plain text, which Lisp is great at).
Why:
I took a glance at the FlightGear source code, and I see a lot of structural boilerplate -- even a straight port might end up being half the size.
They use strings for keys all over the place (C++ doesn't have symbols). They use XML for semi-human-readable config files (C++ doesn't have a runtime reader). Simply switching to native Lisp constructs here could be big win for minimal effort.
Nothing looks at all complex, even the "AI". It's simply a matter of keeping everything organized, and Lisp will be great at this because it'll be a lot shorter.
But the neat thing about Lisp is that it's multi-paradigm. You can use OO for organizing the "objects", and FP for computation within each object. I say just start writing and see where it takes you.
I would first think of the nature of the simulation.
Some simulations require interaction like a flight simulator. I don't think functional programming may be a good choice for an interactive (read: CPU intensive/response-critical) applicaiton. Of course, if you have access to 8 PS3's wired together with Linux, you'll not care too much about performance.
For simulations like evolutionary/genetic programming where you set it up and let 'er rip, a functioonal lauguage may help model the problem domain better than an OO language. Not that I'm an expert in functional programming but the ease of coding recursion and the idea of lazy evaluation common in functional languages seems to me a good fit for the 'let her rip' sort of sims.
I wouldn't say functional programming lends itself particularly well to flight simulation. In general, functional languages can be very useful for writing scientific simulations, though this is a slightly specialised case. Really, you'd probably be better off with a standard imperative (preferably OOP) language like C++/C#/Java, as they would tend to have the better physics libraries as well as graphics APIs, both of which you would need to use very heavily. Also, the OOP approach might make it easier to represent your environment. Another point to consider is that (as far as I know) the popular flight simulators on the market today are written pretty much entirely in C++.
Essentially, my philosophy is that if there's no particularly good reason that you should need to use functional paradigms, then don't use a functional language (though there's nothing to stop you using functional constructs in OOP/mixed languages). I suspect you're going to have a lot less painful of a development process using the well-tested APIs for C++ and languages more commonly associated with game development (which has many commonalities with flight sim). Now, if you want to add some complex AI to the simulator, Lisp might seem like a rather more obvious choice, though even then I wouldn't at all jump for it. And finally, if you're really keen on using a functional language, I would recommend you go with one of the more general purpose ones like Python or even F# (both mixed imperative-functional languages really), as opposed to Lisp, which could end up getting rather ugly for such a project.
There are a few problems with functional languages, and that is they don't mesh well with state, but they do go well with process. So in a way it could be said they are action oriented. This means you'll be wasting your time simulating a plane, what you want to do is simulate the actions of flying a plane. Once you grim that you can probably get it to work.
Now as side point, haskell wouldn't be good IMHO, because it's too abstract for a "game", this sort of app is all about Input/Output, but Haskell is about avoiding IO, so it'll become a monad nightmare, and you'll be working against the language. Lisp is a better choice, or Lua or Javascript, they are also functional, but not purely functional, so for your case try Lisp. Anyways in any of these languages your graphics will be C or C++.
A serious issue however is there is very little documentation, and less tutorials about Functional languages and "games", of course scientific simulations is academically documented but those papers are quite dense, if you succeed maybe you could write you experiences, for others as it's a rather empty field right now
SICP - "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"
Explanation for the same would be nice
Can some one explain about Metalinguistic Abstraction
SICP really drove home the point that it is possible to look at code and data as the same thing.
I understood this before when thinking about universal Turing machines (the input to a UTM is just a representation of a program) or the von Neumann architecture (where a single storage structure holds both code and data), but SICP made the idea much more clear. Scheme (Lisp) helped here, as the syntax for a program is exactly the same as the syntax for lists in general, namely S-expressions.
Once you have the "equivalence" of code and data, suddenly a lot of things become easy. For example, you can write programs that have different evaluation methods (lazy, nondeterministic, etc). Previously, I might have thought that this would require an extension to the programming language; in reality, I can just add it on to the language myself, thus allowing the core language to be minimal. As another example, you can similarly implement an object-oriented framework; again, this is something I might have naively thought would require modifying the language.
Incidentally, one thing I wish SICP had mentioned more: types. Type checking at compilation time is an amazing thing. The SICP implementation of object-oriented programming did not have this benefit.
I didn't read that book yet, I have only looked at the video courses, but it taught me a lot. Functions as first class citizens was mind blowing for me. Executing a "variable" was something very new to me. After watching those videos the way I now see JavaScript and programming in general has greatly changed.
Oh, I think I've lied, the thing that really struck me was that + was a function.
I think the most surprising thing about SICP is to see how few primitives are actually required to make a Turing complete language--almost anything can be built from almost nothing.
Since we are discussing SICP, I'll put in my standard plug for the video lectures at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/, which are the best Introduction to Computer Science you could hope to get in 20 hours.
The one that I thought was really cool was streams with delayed evaluation. The one about generating primes was something I thought was really neat. Like a "PEZ" dispenser that magically dispenses the next prime in the sequence.
One example of "the data and the code are the same thing" from A. Rex's answer got me in a very deep way.
When I was taught Lisp back in Russia, our teachers told us that the language was about lists: car, cdr, cons. What really amazed me was the fact that you don't need those functions at all - you can write your own, given closures. So, Lisp is not about lists after all! That was a big surprise.
A concept I was completely unfamiliar with was the idea of coroutines, i.e. having two functions doing complementary work and having the program flow control alternate between them.
I was still in high school when I read SICP, and I had focused on the first and second chapters. For me at the time, I liked that you could express all those mathematical ideas in code, and have the computer do most of the dirty work.
When I was tutoring SICP, I got impressed by different aspects. For one, the conundrum that data and code are really the same thing, because code is executable data. The chapter on metalinguistic abstractions is mind-boggling to many and has many take-home messages. The first is that all the rules are arbitrary. This bothers some students, specially those who are physicists at heart. I think the beauty is not in the rules themselves, but in studying the consequence of the rules. A one-line change in code can mean the difference between lexical scoping and dynamic scoping.
Today, though SICP is still fun and insightful to many, I do understand that it's becoming dated. For one, it doesn't teach debugging skills and tools (I include type systems in there), which is essential for working in today's gigantic systems.
I was most surprised of how easy it is to implement languages. That one could write interpreter for Scheme onto a blackboard.
I felt Recursion in different sense after reading some of the chapters of SICP
I am right now on Section "Sequences as Conventional Interfaces" and have found the concept of procedures as first class citizens quite fascinating. Also, the application of recursion is something I have never seen in any language.
Closures.
Coming from a primarily imperative background (Java, C#, etc. -- I only read SICP a year or so ago for the first time, and am re-reading it now), thinking in functional terms was a big revelation for me; it totally changed the way I think about my work today.
I read most part of the book (without exercise). What I have learned is how to abstract the real world at a specific level, and how to implement a language.
Each chapter has ideas surprise me:
The first two chapters show me two ways of abstracting the real world: abstraction with the procedure, and abstraction with data.
Chapter 3 introduces time in the real world. That results in states. We try assignment, which raises problems. Then we try streams.
Chapter 4 is about metalinguistic abstraction, in other words, we implement a new language by constructing an evaluator, which determines the meaning of expressions.
Since the evaluator in Chapter 4 is itself a Lisp program, it inherits the control structure of the underlying Lisp system. So in Chapter 5, we dive into the step-by-step operation of a real computer with the help of an abstract model, register machine.
Thanks.