Hi all ! I think the J notation is shorter than the Haskell notation. If you see J as a "homogenous algebra", I'm interested in how a Haskell implementation or a compiled language written in Haskell that uses something similar to this algera would look. The type information in Haskell is impressive, and I didn't mean to say it could be shorter.
Cheers, Erling -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Raul Miller Sent: den 2 oktober 2009 15:05 To: Chat forum Subject: Re: [Jchat] Haskell On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm very impressed by Haskell and how you catch very many faults at > compilation time. I'm impressed by how little type information you have to > give. Lazy evaluation is also dead cool. When I work in Haskell I miss the > efficient notation of J and APL though. It seems you could create something > like J as a compiled language written in Haskell or as an extension to > Haskell. Anyone gave it a try or have related ideas ? Given how little type information you have to give in Haskell, how can you really ask for it to be more efficient? Wouldn't that be contradictory? -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
