In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:07, John Sharley wrote: > > I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site > > (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx) > > <quote> > > 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. > > </quote> > > > > Are the Microsoft Research people working on GHC or anyone else on this list > > also of this opinion? If so, why? > > This is a clear case of FUD: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD I agree. It's been changed now, however: "Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist with language interoperability between lazy and strict languages." Given your work on FFI, would you care to comment? I wonder if F# really is as obviously preferable to a "Haskell#" as they claim? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
