Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Paul Lotti's message of Thu Jun 17 15:33:30 -0400 2010:
Same feelings here. I work in a company that uses C++/Java and the best I could
manage was to use Haskell for prototyping and then deliver in Java. This worked
out twice so far. The downside is having to translate it later.
*Shudders at the though.* Must be a what, x10 size blow-up?
I've done that too. It works fairly well for certain kinds of
programs/problems, but you have to be careful about your abstractions.
For instance, Java Generics are no substitute for real parametric
polymorphism. They only work for the simplest kind of container/element
polymorphism, interact poorly (i.e., not at all) with subclassing, and
explode with many of the higher-order tricks common in idiomatic
Haskell. Any sort of higher-order programming (HOFs, point-free style,
CPS, parametricity,...) rarely translates well--- especially if you want
to avoid code bloat and have anything resembling idiomatic Java. Though
sometimes defunctionalization[1] can help.
The code blow up varies. 10x is on the good side of things and indicates
a good match of abstractions. 20x or 30x is more common I think. But if
you're relying on any libraries or fancy datastructures, you'll be lucky
not to have to reimplement everything...
[1]
http://blog.plover.com/prog/defunctionalization.html
http://www.brics.dk/RS/01/23/
http://cristal.inria.fr/~fpottier/publis/fpottier-gauthier-popl04.pdf
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
