At 17:24 97/08/21, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
>Does Haskell really need the features that will be part of
>a Research Haskell? Or is it better to freeze Haskell development
>now and start developing systems u s i n g Haskell? Languages look
>very ugly if too overloaded with new concepts (look at C++).
>
> >> Standardizing a language tends to make it obsolete, due to lack of
> >>creativity. Perhaps it is time to start discussing the successor of
> >>Haskell then.
> >
> >Please not yet! Let us finish Haskell first!
>
> Well, what I tried to say is that once one starts to standardize
> From: Christian Sievers[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 1997 6:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: how about main :: IO Int
>
> Hello, I just wondered if it was ever considered to let the main
> function
> have the type IO Int, in order to let
Hello, I just wondered if it was ever considered to let the main function
have the type IO Int, in order to let the haskell programm be able to
return an exit code to the calling environment, as C's int main(...)
does. I think real programms sometimes want to exit(1) in some
cases.
Christian
The report says explicit that instance declarations like
instance C (a,a) where ..., or for (Int,a) or for [[a]] are not
allowed. I tried to understand this by thinking these types are too
complex, but I had to learn that a type may also be too simple,
i.e. just writinginstance D ais not
Someone wrote:
> Honestly, would you use a language which does not allow to program a
> depth-first graph traversal in O(n).
Ah. I didn't realize it was that bad. My understanding of
Haskell is quite rudimentary.
And yet, now that I think about it, I have never implemented a
depth-first gr
Hans Aberg writes:
>
> I would rather think that the reason that functional languages are not
> used is the lack of an ISO/ANSI standard, plus the lack of standard ways of
> making cooperation with other, imperative languages.
>
This is true. The Haskell community has to decide wether Haskell
Ralf Hinze writes:
> [...]
> To turn Haskell into a serious language, several
> *extensions* are absolutely necessary:
> [...]
Another area that should be standardized in order to make Standard
Haskell more serious is the interaction with other programming
languages. However, I don't know whether
If I may interject...
It seems that you are considering the alternatives of "simple"
versus "useful for serious work". This is highly ironic to me,
because I first discovered Haskell a couple of months ago when
I said "I want a simple language with _fewer_ _features_ to do
my serious work in.",
John Hughes writes
> (...)
> encountered all too many students with the impression that functional
> languages are OK for toy programs, but for real work you need
> C/C++/Java/whatever. They can easily get that impression, paradoxically,
> because of the success we functional programmers have ha
Stefan,
Something like your proposal for `irrefutable cases' was tried out
by Friedman and Wise a long time ago. I hope I'm remembering that
correctly -- I have an even more vague memory that the original
idea was proposed by McCarthy. You should follow this up by
contacting Friedman and Wise t
At 11:54 97/08/21, John Hughes wrote:
>>Is it not possible to make the versions upwards compatible, so that
>> Haskell 1.4 code somehow can be run on Haskell 1.5? Does "being stable"
>> need to mean unchangeable?
>
>Well, that's really been the aim all along, but things haven't t
Please pardon me if I come across as a smug outsider, but it seems
like a Catch-22 situation:
1. Designers would like more people to program in Haskell.
2. The industry prefers to use standards.
3. Designers realize that a standard will more or less put them out
of business.
This is
John Hughes writes:
>> If now the language should be standardized, why not make it an
>>ISO/ANSI standard?
>>
>I don't think this is the time. Look at Pascal. After the revised definition
>was published many years passed before it became an ISO standard, during which
>the language
At 17:26 97/08/20, John Whitley wrote:
>Perhaps what is needed are two tracks of language development,
>"Standard Haskell" and "Research Haskell". The research community
>continues to develop, distribute, and test new language concepts with
>less fear of disrupting existing users. After sufficien
Let me try to give my answers to some of the points that have come up since
yesterday.
Hans Aberg says:
If now the language should be standardized, why not make it an
ISO/ANSI standard?
I don't think this is the time. Look at Pascal. After the revised definition
was publishe
Fergus Henderson writes:
ISO is the same. But standards don't get updated every five years.
Rather, each standard must be _reconsidered_ every five years. One of
the possible results is for the standard to be reapproved unchanged.
If the standards committee does decide that the stan
Hi!
The wish to freeze Haskell with the next version came as a complete
surprise to me (only an occasional user). Isn't the present state very
unsatisfactory?
- Monads were introduced but, in my opinion, aren't yet fully
integrated. They should be more pervasive. (Those who don't like
further
Hans Aberg writes:
I do not think that the Pascal standardizing model is being used
anymore; instead one schedules a new revision, say every five years
(this is used for C++). There is already an application put in for
ISO/ANSI standardizing of Java, and I think Java is younger than
19 matches
Mail list logo
