The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop evolving
in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why should it
be Haskell? Haskell is a good language and it's time to start
benefiting from the research that's already gone into it. That means
some tradeoffs.
Haskell is already behind state-of-the art in PL research and it seems
unlikely to catch up (witness the slow evolution of Haskell' and the
non-existent progress on Haskell2). Of course, I could be wrong.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
"John A. De Goes" <j...@n-brain.net> wrote:
Personally, I'd be happy to see that explosion of innovation in the
library and tool spaces, even if it means the language itself stops
evolving (for the most part). It will make it a lot easier do use
Haskell commercially, and the innovators in the language space will
find or invent a new target to keep themselves occupied.
And this is why we must avoid success: It would mean instant failure.
There are already enough hype-languages around, there's not too much
of
a point to add one to them. Haskell won't stop evolving and
(conservatively) keeping up with PL research until that's done, or
Dependent Typing is well-understood, whatever comes first.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
