On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:13 PM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
If you have counterexamples, then perhaps you can name them. I'm looking
for Java shops with 5+ developers and code bases of 100k converting over
to Haskell. I don't know _any such shop_ that has switched to Haskell,
Michael == Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com writes:
Michael not be written in pure Haskell, but then again I'm not
Michael sure if there are any fully W3 compliant browsers *not*
Michael written in C++.
I'm not sure if there are any fully W3 compliant browsers.
How could there
You misunderstood my point. The browser, BigTable clone, and peer-to-
peer networking libraries are starting points for applications -- ones
that I've actually needed at various points in my career. You can grab
them and start developing with them in a few minutes. If you want
these
John A. De Goes wrote:
write them yourself (at a cost of several to dozens of man years),
Is that right?
--
Tony Morris
http://tmorris.net/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
It's the early adopters who develop the first libraries that pull in
ever wider audiences. Yes, the early adopters are drawn by the syntax
of the language, but commercial adoption doesn't come until it's
economically competitive to do so. And that doesn't happen until the
library market
On 28/09/2009, at 7:38 AM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
That's not really true. Just use CAL from the Open Quark
framework... It's almost Haskell 98, with some extras, and compiles
to fast JVM code.
http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.html
They even seem to do all kinds of advanced
Hello Curt,
Sunday, September 27, 2009, 8:16:53 PM, you wrote:
http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/drafts/2009/09/27.succ-java-summary.html
what are the types of balance and interest in balance * interest
expression? ;)
--
Best regards,
Bulat
On 2009-09-28 11:13 +0400 (Mon), Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/drafts/2009/09/27.succ-java-summary.html
what are the types of balance and interest in balance * interest
expression? ;)
I dunno, but I think it's not really relevant to the point of the
Interop between Haskell and Java is too difficult to be practical. And
I stand by my statement that no Java shop is going to switch over to
Haskell, precisely because they cannot afford to abandon either their
existing investment, or the _billions of dollars_ worth of commercial-
friendly
CAL is interesting, but unfortunately dead, and has no community.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-Brain, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101
On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
That's not really true. Just use CAL from the Open
On 2009-09-28 07:01 -0600 (Mon), John A. De Goes wrote:
And I stand by my statement that no Java shop is going to switch over
to Haskell
I have counterexamples. So pt!
...or the _billions of dollars_ worth of commercial-
friendly open source libraries available for the Java
If you have counterexamples, then perhaps you can name them. I'm
looking for Java shops with 5+ developers and code bases of 100k
converting over to Haskell. I don't know _any such shop_ that has
switched to Haskell, and I doubt any exist, but I'd be delighted to
learn I'm wrong.
Let
John A. De Goes wrote:
If you have counterexamples, then perhaps you can name them. I'm looking
for Java shops with 5+ developers and code bases of 100k converting
over to Haskell. I don't know _any such shop_ that has switched to
Haskell, and I doubt any exist, but I'd be delighted to
From: haskell-cafe-boun...@haskell.org
[mailto:haskell-cafe-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Edward
Middleton
If you have counterexamples, then perhaps you can name
them. I'm looking
for Java shops with 5+ developers and code bases of 100k
converting
over to Haskell. I don't
Hello Edward,
Monday, September 28, 2009, 6:26:12 PM, you wrote:
If you have counterexamples, then perhaps you can name them. I'm looking
for Java shops with 5+ developers and code bases of 100k converting
over to Haskell. I don't know _any such shop_ that has switched to
Haskell, and I
That's a really shame. Any idea why?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
CAL is interesting, but unfortunately dead, and has no community.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-Brain, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|
Ok, my last post on this for real this time.
On 2009-09-28 08:13 -0600 (Mon), John A. De Goes wrote:
Let me ask you this question: how long would it take you to get an
HTML/CSS, W3 compliant browser in Haskell?
A long time. On the other hand, by grabbing a copy of Mozilla, I'll have
one far
2009/09/28 John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net:
Libraries are _everything_...
Not exactly. Python would never have gotten a foothold over
Perl, nor Java over C, if cleaner language semantics weren't
enough for some shops or certain applications.
--
Jason Dusek
I think they made a mistake choosing a syntax so close to Haskell:
1. It's close enough to Haskell to attract Haskellers;
2. It's far enough away from Haskell to push Haskellers away;
3. It's not the language one would design if one were prioritizing
easy interop with Java in
On 29/09/2009, at 1:59 AM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
That's a really shame. Any idea why?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net
wrote:
CAL is interesting, but unfortunately dead, and has no community.
I think Haskell users would miss too many of the post 98
Curt Sampson wrote:
I've been hearing that having lots of libraries is an insurmountable
advantage, and you're doomed if you give them up, since long before I
took up Haskell. It's mostly myth promulgated by people driven by fear.
I'm sure it's the case in some shops that they have lots of
No, it's not quite what it sounds like. :-)
Stuart Halloway recently posted a series of blog entries entitled
Java.next[1], discussing the benefits of four other languages that
compile to JVM bytecode and interoperate with Java: Clojure, Groovy,
JRuby, and Scala. I thought I'd put my oar in and
I'm not sure what the point of your series is. No one who is using
Java now commercially can move to Haskell because Haskell doesn't run
on the JVM.
It makes sense to discuss Clojure, Groovy, JRuby, Scala, Fan, etc., as
next Java's, because they all run on the JVM and have seamless
That's not really true. Just use CAL from the Open Quark framework... It's
almost Haskell 98, with some extras, and compiles to fast JVM code.
http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.html
http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.htmlThey even seem to do all kinds
of advanced optimizations - like
On 2009-09-27 10:36 -0600 (Sun), John A. De Goes wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of your series is. No one who is using Java
now commercially can move to Haskell because Haskell doesn't run on the
JVM.
That's a rather strong statement, and I don't accept it. I can not only
think of many
25 matches
Mail list logo
