On Saturday, July 28, 2012 09:58:58 Stuart wrote: > On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 07:45:20 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen > > wrote: > > On 28-07-2012 09:36, Stuart wrote: > >> On Friday, 27 July 2012 at 21:59:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: > >>> - Scheme > >>> - Haskell > >>> - OCaml > >>> - F# > >>> - Erlang > >>> - Clojure > >>> - Some C and C++ compilers (gcc, Intel, MSVC in release mode) > >>> - Most commercial Lisp compilers > >> > >> So, as I said, nothing you can write a real program in - > >> except possibly > >> for F#. The possibility of "some" C compilers supporting it > >> doesn't mean > >> you can rely on the feature being present. > > > > Are you serious........? > > Uh, yeah? Aside from C (which doesn't always support tail call > optimisation), and F#, none of these languages would seem to have > any purpose on a desktop computer. I don't know of any way, in > this day and age, to write application software (e.g. Notepad) > for a 32 or 64-bit Windows 7 machine, in goddamn Haskell. I may > be mistaken.
Oh, you can do it. There's no question of that. For instance, you can use wxhaskell to do your GUI. However, how _sane_ it is is another matter entirely. I've done a fair bit of programming in haskell and quite like the language (it has the best parsing library that I've ever used), but debugging it is a royal pain thanks to the fact that it's a lazy language, and I don't know how you could sanely do more than small programs with it. People definitely do it though. - Jonathan M Davis
