On 24-Sep-1999, Alex Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've managed to entirely confuse myself trying to install TclHaskell
> on a Wintel machine, via Cynwin and ghc-4.03. Poking around it looks
> like the problem is with the Tcl/Tk libraries, which seem to have been
> complied up with Vis
Bjorn Lisper wrote:
> >Joe Fasel wrote:
> >> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
> >> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
> >> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
> >> us that the semantic distinction of s
I compared Haskell to C++ on the Criptarithm solver
suggested several days ago by
Mark Engelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
C++ was 17 times faster than ghc-4.04. (I expected 10 times).
The compilation keys were g++ -O2
ghc -c -fvia-C -O2 -O2-for-C
Here is the
Joe Fasel wrote:
> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
> us that the semantic distinction of strictness versus nonstrictness
> sh
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Claus Reinke wrote:
>
> So, if you want, you can call C a functional language, but its support
> for functional programming isn't very good, so it is not a good
>
I don't agree with this. C is not a functional language, since one of the
most important features o
>> Haskell tries to be pure, but as it also aims to support imperative
>> programming, it is no longer purely functional.
>I'm curious. Could you explain exactly what features of Haskell
>you think render claims of 'pure functionality' false?
The standard example would be IO.
In contrast to t
i don't ever post to this group but...
a functional language is one in which curry and compose can
be defined.
---fred
>Joe Fasel wrote:
>> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
>> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
>> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
>> us that the semantic distinction of strictness versus nonstrictness
Frank Christoph wrote,
| Ah, right. Someone mentioned just recently (I forget who---sorry) that
| nothing in the Report forces a Haskell implementation to use call-by-need. I
| guess this is a manifestation of the change of direction, from laziness to
| non-strictness...?
My point was meant to b
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jonathan> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
>>
>> > S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>> > > So far, no clear progrm example appeared in this list to
As one of the authors of this paper, I'd like to echo Manuel's warning
about quoting out of context. The paper is about Haskell as a tool in
designing and presenting algorithms, not about performance. The Haskell
program was written for clarity, to explain a fairly tricky algorithm. The
figures a
Olivier LeFevre wrote,
| "R.S. Nikhil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
|
| > Sisal researchers [...] deliberatly chose to avoid higher-order functions,
| > polymorphism, laziness, etc.
|
| In a first release, yes, but I believe higher-order functions were included in
| Sisal 2.0, which was almost
I've managed to entirely confuse myself trying to install TclHaskell
on a Wintel machine, via Cynwin and ghc-4.03. Poking around it looks
like the problem is with the Tcl/Tk libraries, which seem to have been
complied up with Visual C++.
Now, is there a magic incantation that will persuade TclH
13 matches
Mail list logo
