> > Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
> > within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist with language
> > interoperability between lazy and strict languages.
> >
> > I believe that is uncontroversial.
Actually, I think Haskell has one of the better language interopera
Jochen L. Leidner wrote:
> sorry for an urgent newbie question: how can I create a statically
> compiled version of a Haskell program on Linux with GHC that does not rely
> on external shared libs (also for any of its libraries it uses)?
Possibly with a great deal of difficulty, depending upon
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
We've no idea what to do here. In your case it'd be possible to just
ignore the script, but presumably not so in general. [...]
I've just made a quick test on my SuSE 9.1 Linux and it seems to be the
case that an explicit "-lpthread" is not necessary anymore, even for
pro
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:04:53AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Nothing difficult in principle, but the constraint solver is one of
> the more delicate parts of GHC because GHC's constraint language has
> become so complex.
Well, as my day job is working for a constraints lab, I feel it's my
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:06:44PM +0100, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> I agree, I have made it not terminate myself with undecidable-instances,
Congratulations. ;-)
> I also think prolog style backtacking would be a good idea... I think I said
> that you either want full backtracking or you want to
On 21 May 2004 01:07, John Sharley wrote:
> I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
> (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
>
> Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
> niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can
> qu
On 21 May 2004 01:07, John Sharley wrote:
> I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
> (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
>
> Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
> niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can
> qu
On 21 May 2004 14:17, Jochen L. Leidner wrote:
> sorry for an urgent newbie question: how can I create a statically
> compiled version of a Haskell program on Linux with GHC that does not
> rely on external shared libs (also for any of its libraries it uses)?
>
> I would like to build a binary th
Hi,
sorry for an urgent newbie question: how can I create a statically
compiled version of a Haskell program on Linux with GHC that does not rely
on external shared libs (also for any of its libraries it uses)?
I would like to build a binary that works on a 3-processor machine with an
older Li
We've no idea what to do here. In your case it'd be possible to just
ignore the script, but presumably not so in general.
If anyone who understands the problem properly would like to advise,
we'd be happy to hear from them. Parsing ld scripts seems beyond what
our linker is ever going to do!
Sim
> but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
> into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
Of course you could say that the excersise is not actaully as simple
as you believe, and other languages will let you get away with stuff
you really shouldn't be doing.
A good exam
I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
(http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
Do we have enough Haskell now for it to have it's own category?
Python and other languages have their own category and it makes
it easier for folks like me to "browse the haskell library" of
darwinports.
That is unless we can get some kind of decent query system in
Darwinports
for finding out wh
I have seen very compact Prolog implementations in Haskell, and I
also know that constraints, modelled by CHRs can be evaluated directly
in Prolog. Why not just bolt one of these compact Prologs onto the
compiler, and just feed it the facts and rules...
Keean.
| > I agree, I have made it not terminate myself with
| > undecidable-instances,
| > I also think prolog style backtacking would be a good idea...
|
| For what it's worth, I'll AOL this ("me too"). I know that for the
| area of Haskell I'm exploring (integrating it with OO languages),
| putting b
15 matches
Mail list logo
