On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 21:20, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote: > The other area (again MS specific) that F# has better interoperability, > is .NET . F# (notice similarity to C#) is a funtional language within > the .NET framework - hence supports the 'COM' style interface within > the language primitives, just like C# does. This means coding a .NET > component in F# is trivial - In haskell its still pretty hard-core > (its hard even in C hence the prevelence of visual-toolkits on the MS > platform - and also the eventual development of C#)
Well, .NET basically works nice with C# and any other language that you cripple until you get C# with a different syntax. Even C++ doesn't really work nicely on the CLR: http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/2005/clr.htm How can anybody expect Haskell to fit in under these circumstances? Haskell simply is to powerful to fit into the CLR straight jacket. > The only way the author of this comment can be persuaded to delete it > I think is if Haskell were to have a neat .NET component interface, unfortunately > Haskell's class system is not up to incorporating OO hierachies like .NET > without some changes... Not? How about http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/PC03.html Manuel _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
