robdockins:
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Albert Lai wrote:
>
> >"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Also, the bottom line imho is that Haskell is a difficult language to
> >>understand, and this is compounded by the apparent cleverness of
> >>unreadable code like:
> >>
> >> c =
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Albert Lai wrote:
"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, the bottom line imho is that Haskell is a difficult language to
understand, and this is compounded by the apparent cleverness of
unreadable code like:
c = (.) . (.)
when a normal person would
Albert Lai wrote:
Let's have a fun quiz! Guess the mainstream languages in question:
Spoilers for the quiz
0. What language would allow
4["hello world"]
when a normal person would just write
"hello world"[4]
This is a classic C misfeature
"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, the bottom line imho is that Haskell is a difficult language to
> understand, and this is compounded by the apparent cleverness of
> unreadable code like:
>
> c = (.) . (.)
>
> when a normal person would just write:
>
> c f g a b = f
Udo,
us:
> mf:
> > AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the
> > bigint code in ssh-v1.3
>
> SSH included GMP, which was licensed under the GPL. Nothing "happened"
> there, only the OpenSSH folks disliked the license and reimplemented
> GMP.
... and had to fight an ugly battle over the question
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever
> take in a single patch under the GPL,
This kind of thing doesn't happen by accident. Patches don't magically
creep into your code, you have to apply them deliberately and you should
always know whethe
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
> To: Matthias Fischmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
> From: Chris Kuklewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:57:47 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haske
Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a
company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD
for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work
from them.
But this is just the thing, isn't it? The GPL has
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and
> manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs
> as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it.
Nonsense. The GPL says, *if* you distribute a binary, *then* you also
have to distribute t
There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's.
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
[...]
The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work
from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do no
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work
> from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the
> choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds
"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I meant "even a non-programmer" in the sense of "even someone who is
> not a C hacker" to show that the threat of people being able to "steal
> code" from a program is not the only source of problems that GPL could
> impose on a commercial applicati
On 07/08/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So now Ned, who's a very conscientious person, is faced with an impossiblemoral dilemma, ie a choice between helping Nick establish his business orlosing Homer (who's a bit slow when it comes to matters of conscience) as a
friend.A good friend sh
Piotr Kalinowski wrote:
On 06/08/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore I think this distinction between concepts is just
sophistry.
The distinction is there and relies on the community and people being
honest to avoid situations as you described. If you don't want it
however (w
On 06/08/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore I think this distinction between concepts is just sophistry.
The distinction is there and relies on the community and people being
honest to avoid situations as you described. If you don't want it
however (well in this case relying
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
4) Haskell is open source ...
You can discover the licensing situation...
A license which requires programmers to disclose their sources
shouldn't be a problem for a commercial app
Brian Hulley wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
4) Haskell is open source and licensing restrictions forbid
commercial applications. I haven't seen any such restrictions, but
is this a problem for the standard modules?
The reason you have no seen any suc
On 06/08/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Afaict a license such as GPL allows anyone, even a non-programmer, to just
re-distribute whatever application you created because one condition of it
is that anyone should be free to share software with anyone else without
having to pay anythin
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
4) Haskell is open source and licensing restrictions forbid
commercial applications. I haven't seen any such restrictions, but
is this a problem for the standard modules?
You can discover the licensing situation by downloading
Hello Bjorn,
Saturday, August 5, 2006, 6:59:33 PM, you wrote:
yes, thank you
>>> 2) Input and output are not good enough, in particular for graphical
>>> user interfacing and/or data base interaction. But it seems there are
>>> several user interfaces and SQL and other data base interfaces for
>
Hello Kaveh,
Saturday, August 5, 2006, 10:16:06 AM, you wrote:
> 1 - monads : there must be something to make a clear tool for a
> none-mathematician programmer. (I still have understanding problems
> with them).
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/IO_inside and "All about monads"
> 2 - there must b
On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Friday, August 4, 2006, 8:17:42 PM, you wrote:
1) Haskell is too slow for practical use, but the benchmarks I found
appear to contradict this.
it's an advertisement :D just check yourself
2) Input and output are not good enough, in parti
I have started to love haskell and like these friends I am starting to
be annoying about "Why not haskell?" and realy realy why not haskell?
In commercial world there are buzz-oriented languages that do the
"barking to the picture" in their "communities" - which are in fact
groups of free marketer
G'day all.
Quoting Udo Stenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Uh, this one's wrong. Does C++ of 15 years ago support today's programs?
C++ of _today_ doesn't support today's programs in some cases. Just
ask the Boost developers about the various workarounds they still have
to deal with.
> No. C++ of
G'day all.
Quoting Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 15. OO is now tried and true in industry. I would say it's far from
> optimal but people do know they can build large applications (say
> ~100k lines of C++). So naturally shifting to a new paradigm will
> meet resistance.
OO on its own is
Hello Jason,
Friday, August 4, 2006, 10:01:31 PM, you wrote:
> 15. OO is now tried and true in industry. I would say it's far from
> optimal but people do know they can build large applications (say
> ~100k lines of C++).
it's medium size. GHC is larger :)
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Hans,
Friday, August 4, 2006, 8:17:42 PM, you wrote:
> 1) Haskell is too slow for practical use, but the benchmarks I found
> appear to contradict this.
it's an advertisement :D just check yourself
> 2) Input and output are not good enough, in particular for graphical
> user interfacing
Jason Dagit wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >6. Instability - available for 15 years, you say, but does the Haskell
> >of 15 years ago support today's programs? Does standard Haskell
> >even support today's programs?
Uh, this one's wrong. Does C++ of 15 years
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
> > 4) Haskell is open source and licensing restrictions forbid commercial
> > applications. I haven't seen any such restrictions, but is this a
> > problem for the standard modules?
>
> You can discover the licensing situation by downloading the GHC sourc
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> Hans van Thiel wrote:
>> I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on
>> the Internet. Is there any reason for this?
>
> Of course. Corporations are conservative to the point of being
> boneheaded. So to avoid risk, they all went
Hans van Thiel wrote:
Hello All,
I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on
the Internet. Is there any reason for this?
I'm actually working on a Haskell program which I hope to release as a
commercial application. The biggest problem I'm encountering is the lack of
Hans van Thiel wrote:
> I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on
> the Internet. Is there any reason for this?
Of course. Corporations are conservative to the point of being
boneheaded. So to avoid risk, they all went on the internet and said,
"Gee, I can't find any
On 8/4/06, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Hans van Thiel wrote:
...
> Are there other reasons why there seem to be just a few thousand
> (hundred?) Haskell programmers in the world, compared to the 3 million
> Java programmers and x million C/C++ programmers?
I can thin
Hans van Thiel wrote:
Hello All,
I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on
the Internet. Is there any reason for this?
I can think of the following possibilities only:
1) Haskell is too slow for practical use, but the benchmarks I found
appear to contradict this.
2) I
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Hans van Thiel wrote:
...
> Are there other reasons why there seem to be just a few thousand
> (hundred?) Haskell programmers in the world, compared to the 3 million
> Java programmers and x million C/C++ programmers?
I can think of several other possible reasons -
6. Instabil
Hello All,
I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on
the Internet. Is there any reason for this?
I can think of the following possibilities only:
1) Haskell is too slow for practical use, but the benchmarks I found
appear to contradict this.
2) Input and output are not
36 matches
Mail list logo
