"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >* While Sisal is arguably nice than Fortran, it doesn't > really provide a new killer feature - rewriting all this > Fortran code, just for getting nice programs is maybe not > enough of an incentive. As I remember it, a main argument for Sisal was that the freedom of side effects would simplify the automatic parallelisation. So one important percieved incentive was to actually get better performance than from automatically parallelised Fortran. Björn Lisper
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ S.D.Mechveliani
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ George Russell
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ D. Tweed
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Jan Skibinski
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Will Partain
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Bjorn Lisper
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Pieter Koopman
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- RE: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ R.S. Nikhil
- RE: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ John Atwood
- Re: Cryptarithm solver - Haskell vs. C++ Fergus Henderson