> >> Standardizing a language tends to make it obsolete, due to lack of
> >> creativity. Perhaps it is time to start discussing the successor of
> >> Haskell then.
> >
> >Please not yet! Let us finish Haskell first!
>
> Well, what I tried to say is that once one starts to standardize Haskell,
> then, in effect, one is finishing it; this is not really something
> negative, but has to do with the natural life cycle of computer languages.
All this talk about laying Haskell to rest is starting to put tears in
my eyes...
I remember Haskell. If he seemed ascetic and overly functional at times,
once you got close to him you could see he was not strict at all. Some
say he was lazy, but I say that those men did not see his purity.
Let us observe a moment of silence to mourn the passing of a good friend.
of whom no man could say wrong, one who opened our eyes and taught us many
things, and now seeks a new home in that great big heap of bits in the sky...
<sniff>
-- FC
P.S.: All in jest, of course... hopefully standardization would extend
Haskell's life rather than quicken (prolong?) its death as some people are
suggesting. SML seems to have benefited from the process.
