> But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between > science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are > developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques. > Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY QUICKLY Exactly. Financial engineering being a case at point. It is no coincidence that it is one of the few fields where APL has been able to maitain a foothold and some mindshare. Other functional languages might do well in such niches, too, but my impression is that the niches in question account for a small part of the overall market. Olivier Lefevre Warburg Dillon Reed
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Jan Skibinski
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Matthew Donadio
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Hans Aberg
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Jeffrey R. Lewis
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Simon Peyton-Jones
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Thorsten Zoerner
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Dave Tweed
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Hans Aberg
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Hans Aberg
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? David Barton
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Olivier . Lefevre
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Matthew Donadio
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Dave Tweed
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? R.S. Nikhil
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Jan Skibinski
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Rod Price
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Jeremy D. Frens
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Jan Skibinski
- Re: Haskell in Scientific Computing? Alex Ferguson
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? R.S. Nikhil
- RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing? R.S. Nikhil