<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/www/stylesheets/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>alpheccar's blog - tag semantic</title>
    <link>http://www.alpheccar.org</link>
    <language>en</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>science and freedom</description>
    
    <item>
      <title>Monads and the meaning of imperative languages</title>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[<p>This post is not about functional programming but about plain old imperative languages (C, Java, Python ... replace the dots with your favorite imperative language). I will try to show that you are forced to invent monads if you want to define the meaning of imperative languages ! I have not yet seen this approach to monads in the blogs and tutorials available on the web so I thought it could be a good idea to say a few words about it.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/90">Read More...</a></p>
]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:19:23 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:85</guid>
      <author>webmaster@alpheccar.org</author>
      <link>http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/90</link>
      <comments>http://www.alpheccar.org/en/posts/show/90#comments</comments>
      <category>haskell</category>
      <category>monad</category>
      <category>semantic</category>
      <category>domain</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
