RE: Writing Apache modules in Haskell: mod_haskell

Hi > Has anyone been able to access this site? I have tried several > times over the past couple of weeks, and each time I have gotten > a "No route to host" error. Because of Y2K paranoia we were forced to turn off our computers around the turn of the year and then we switched from Redhat to Su

do not write compiler in C

Frank A. Christoph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for > being written in an imperative language. The number of times GHC > has been too slow and memory-hungry for me indicates that Haskell > is not suitable for writing anything as gener

Haskell & Clean

Hello, I have just read a book about Clean. It seems that Clean is similar to Haskell. So what are the important differences between Clean & Haskell? Thank you, Phan Dung.

Re: On Haskell and Freedom

Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Ian Jackson continues the discussion on Haskell/Clean issue, and > says about the possibility to modify the sources: > > > We're programmers here, aren't we ? Modifying source code is > > what we do. If I encounter a bug in software I'm using I

Re: Writing Apache modules in Haskell: mod_haskell

Oops! It looks like I cut out too much of Eelco's original message, which may make my query about the web site he mentions harder to understand, so let me try again, including more of Eelco's message. Eelco Dolstra wrote: > > Hello, > > We are pleased to announce `mod_haskell'. Mod_haskell is

Re: Writing Apache modules in Haskell: mod_haskell

Eelco Dolstra wrote: > > > Enjoy! Has anyone been able to access this site? I have tried several times over the past couple of weeks, and each time I have gotten a "No route to host" error. Mark __

RE: Clean and Haskell

I wrote: > Doug Ransom wrote: > > It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for writing in a > > functional language. The number of times C++ compilers have given out on me > > indicates that C++ is not suitable for writing anything as complicated as a > > C++ compiler. [...] > I

Re: Immutable arrays (modest Feature request)

my living of. (The resolution of deeply nested typedefs is still broken today). So enough of that: This is still a haskell list. Lets go back to the real (read haskell) stuff. pfitzen

Mixing fruits [Was: Clean and Haskell]

I makes very little sense to compare GCC (C++) with GHC (Haskell) inspite of the sneaky names. 1) While no C++ expert, I'd conjecture that compiling C++ is roughly five times harder than C, due to C++ being a much larger language with _many many_ ugly corners. The difficulty in compiling Haskell

RE: Clean and Haskell

Frank A. Christoph wrote: > The number of times GHC has been too slow and > memory-hungry for me indicates that Haskell is not suitable for writing > anything as general-purpose as a compiler. Maybe it is because GHC is doing some things that are difficult ;) Oh I know a C++ compiler is hand

Re: Clean and Haskell

Hello Jan, > > [..write your own Clean compiler...] > How difficult would this be? Writing it from scratch would be lots and lots of work. Translating to Haskell would also be far from easy. You can not simply throw away uniqueness information. It is essential for doing side-effects. > type che

Compiler implementation and FP [Was: Re: Clean and Haskell]

"Frank A. Christoph" wrote: > > It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for being written > in an imperative language. The number of times GHC has been too slow and > memory-hungry for me indicates that Haskell is not suitable for writing > anything as general-purpose as a comp

RE: Clean and Haskell

Doug Ransom wrote: > I am curious. How much faster do you think GHC would run if it were written > in C? Or how much slower would a C++ compiler be if it were written in > Haskell instead of C++? > > It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for writing in a > functional languag

Domain name problems

I believe that by now name service for haskell.org is back to normal. If there are any further problems with name service please let me know. As it turns out, this wasn't a technical problem but rather a political one. As name service transitioned from within the Yale CS department to the campus

Re: Clean and Haskell

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote: > The fact that there is only one implementation is *NOT THE FAULT OF > HILT*. > You may write your own if you wish, isn't it? The Clean language is not > patented as far as I know. How difficult would this be? I can imagine a simple transla

CL2000: 3rd call for papers

*** apologies for multiple copies *** First International Conference on Computational Logic, CL2000 Imperial College, London, UK 24th to 28th July, 2000 http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/cl2000

On Haskell and Freedom

The tombstone of Nicos Kazantzakis (The Last Temptation of Christ) has the following inscription: I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am FREE. Perhaps this is a tiny bit closer to my personal perception of freedom than the metaphysics of the Free Software Foundation. Ian Jackso

Re: Clean and Haskell

I am curious. How much faster do you think GHC would run if it were written in C? Or how much slower would a C++ compiler be if it were written in Haskell instead of C++? It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for writing in a functional language. The number of times C++ co