Thanks, that's very valuable information. It's hard to appreciate the
relative utility (as you can see :-)) of different experimental features.
It's also confusing that things like exceptions, concurrency, and FFI are
labeled 'experimental'. They're so (IMHO) crucial that I find myself saying,
In my opinion GTK+ is not that nice to develop Win32 applications because
it
provides its own look-and-feel which conflicts with the one of Windows. On
UNIX-like systems where each desktop environment has its own look-and-feel
it
does not conflict under GNOME because GNOME is based on
This is an area of grave concern for me. I am still quite new to Haskell, so
perhaps I should wait until others have spoken, but I'll go ahead anyway. I
certainly don't mean to offend anyone, so please bear with me.
Speaking as an 'industrial' programmer who gave a 30-minute application
I think there's a lot of truth in all you said in your message and I
make the following comment merely as a point of information.
[Bryn Keller]
Thanks very much, I was hoping my comments would be taken
constructively.
I think I speak for the majority of 'industrial'
GHC ranks quite poorly currently. (I think there's an AWK implementation
that's ahead of it, nevermind Ruby or Python). There are still a couple of
benchmarks that haven't been implemented yet for Haskell, and a couple more
that don't make sense for a non-OO language. I spent a little while
-Original Message-
From: Miles Egan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:11:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to say (and this also relates to the newbie question thread) that
I
don't understand why GHC fares so poorly, and I guess I find it a little
Hi Manuel,
It's interesting to me to note the things that were interesting to
you. :-) I'm the author of the Xoltar Toolkit (including functional.py)
mentioned in those articles, and I have to agree with Dr. Mertz - I find
Haskell much more palatable than Lisp or Scheme. Many (most?)
