wren ng thornton wrote: > 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 of cutting egde research into the >> language as well as its compilation to efficiently executable code." > > Objection to calling GHC the most "important". The most mature, most > fully featured, most common, or even the standard implementation,, sure. > But saying GHC is more important than the rest implies that (among > others) the work on JHC and UHC is "unimportant". To the contrary, I > think JHC and UHC are, perhaps, more important than GHC precisely > because they are treading new waters that the standard implementation > cannot afford to explore.
Right on all accounts. Can one say "most mature and full-featured" ? Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
