[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Colin Runciman writes:
> > Names including a date, like Haskell 98, ... could mislead.
>
> How would this be misleading? ...
>
> Taking the two-digit year suggests a lifetime for Haskell '98 of
> more than a year and less than a century, which seems safe enough.
Do we all fancy for ourselves a job in advertising after this functional
programming stuff pans out?
I'd posit that the only important aspect of *the name* is that users be
able to string match it to what they need. If the textbook says it
works with Extreme Haskell 5X, and they have a compiler that supports
Extreme Haskell 5X, then the user is happy. If, on the other hand, the
textbook says that it work with Very Stable Haskell '98, but they can't
find a compiler that supports Very Stable Haskell '98, then the user is
unhappy.
Point is, the name doesn't matter. What matters is our actions - i.e.
that the language actually *be* stable and supported. I think we
already have that pledge, so let's not get too carried away with the
name game. If the language is stable, that will be demonstrated by our
actions, and not by the name.
Haskell 1.5 or Haskell 98 would be fine by me. They're short enough to
remember, and say all that needs to be said.
--Jeff
