Hi Claus,
On Monday 18 June 2007 18:14:58 Claus Reinke wrote:
> >Having just presented a case for the possible rationality of the
> >irrational decision of creating an Emacs-like IDE in Haskell, I
> >wonder if we should not be even more irrational and contemplate the
> >possibility of using Haskell to create a radically different kind of
> >IDE.. New technologies are often used to imitate and reimplement the
> >artefacts of previous technologies.
>
> don't underestimate those "previous" technologies, though. given your
> you're almost certain to find this interesting:
> Croquet is a powerful open source software development environment
Thanks for the reference.
I actually knew about Croquet but I thought of it mostly as an "open-source
second life" because of its emphasys on shared 3D worlds but you are quite
right, it might also be useful for cooperative software development.
I must admit that my dream doesn't go so far, I was more thinking about
Web/Web services kind of technology to integrate distributed traditional
development text-based tools (editors, compilers, etc.) plus a configurable
Web based UI.
> if you look closely, you'll see that croquet is implemented in squeak,
> which in turn is a re-implementation of one of the ancient smalltalks.
>
> squeak is by no means the ideal implementation language for this
> kind of project, nor am i completely convinced by the synchronous
> approach used for croquet. but while implementation of croquet
> in squeak is obviously doable, i see various difficulties for doing
> the same in haskell.
>
> where squeak is too dynamic/imperative/flexible, haskell is too
> static/unreflective/limited (ever tried to pass functions through
> haskell's i/o interface?
Is this really a limitation of the language proper or just of its
implementations?
Is there any fundamental reasons why Haskell functions/closures cannot be
serialised?
I believe that this is precisely what the distributed version of GHC used to
do.
Most languages, even Java, have a reflection capability to dynamically inspect
an object. It is surprising that Haskell doesn't offer it.
...
> persistence [many starts, no finish
Have you checked the prevayler-inspired approach implemented in HAppS ?
> , but see Clean's first
> class i/o]
What advantages does it provide?
> reflection/meta-programming [Data/Typeable, template
> haskell..; meta ml?]).
> one dream would be successors to haskell and
> croquet so that croquet' could be implemented in haskell''.
Is just the lack of reflection in Haskell that you miss?
Or there are other things as well?
best,
titto
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
