Henning Thielemann wrote:
Vo Minh Thu schrieb:
Every once in a while, a discussion about the top-level text on
Haskell.org pops in this list. Without paying much attention to this
thread, and without digging the older threads, it occurs to me that
different people have very different opinion
Ketil Malde ketil at malde.org writes:
Don Stewart dons at galois.com writes:
Good start, if only the advanced were replaced with something more
characteristic, like lazy, or statically typed. Which, BTW, both do not
lazy and statically typed don't mean much to other people. They are
2010/10/18 DavidA polyom...@f2s.com:
Ketil Malde ketil at malde.org writes:
Don Stewart dons at galois.com writes:
Good start, if only the advanced were replaced with something more
characteristic, like lazy, or statically typed. Which, BTW, both do
not
lazy and statically typed
Vo Minh Thu schrieb:
Every once in a while, a discussion about the top-level text on
Haskell.org pops in this list. Without paying much attention to this
thread, and without digging the older threads, it occurs to me that
different people have very different opinion on this subject. I think
Good start, if only the advanced were replaced with something more
characteristic, like lazy, or statically typed. Which, BTW, both do not
appear in the whole blurb, even though they are *the* characteristics of
Haskell, lazyness being even something that sets it apart from most other
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Stefan Monnier
monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
AFAIK laziness is a property of the major implementations of Haskell,
but not really of the language itself. All I see in the Haskell report
points at it being applicative, call by name, but nowhere does the
Don Stewart wrote:
ben.franksen:
Haskell is an advanced purely functional programming language.
Good start, if only the advanced were replaced with something more
characteristic, like lazy, or statically typed. Which, BTW, both
do not
lazy and statically
Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de,
Enough. I think I have made my point.
Yes, though possibly a little overstated it. While it's easy to share
your distaste for the blurb, if you take a generous attitude towards it,
most of it is true enough.
Sorry. I was not in a
Christopher Done wrote:
On 16 October 2010 05:52, Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de wrote:
what marketing idiot has written this inclonclusive mumble-jumble of
buzz-words?
[...]
How can anyone write such a
nonsense? Haskell is not an open source product!
[...]
I am ashamed that it
Ben Franksen wrote:
That cutting edge research is done for Haskell as well as for its
implementations is of course good to know, but just stating it is
not nearly enough: such a statement must be corroberated with
evidence, otherwise it is just idle marketing. (Not that
On 10/16/10 10:48 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
It is open source, and was born open source. It is the product of
research.
How can a language be open source, or rather, how can it *not* be open
source? The point of a (programming) language is that it has a published
('open')
On 10/16/10 11:34 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Christopher Done wrote:
To solve this ambiguity that phrase is a link that people can click to
find out what it means. Object oriented, dynamically typed,
stack-based are about as meaningful.
The difference may be that everyone thinks he knows what
On 10/16/10 11:22 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Much better. Though I *do* think mentioning the main implementations and
their qualities is a good thing to o, right after this:
[...]The most
important Haskell implementation, ghc [like to ghc page], has served as a
test bed for practical application
13 matches
Mail list logo
