Hello!
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:14:48PM +, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Ian Jackson defends Haskell, and attacks Clean for "obvious reasons"
> Clean is not free, etc. :
> [...]
> I am not an advocate of Rinus Plasmeijer, but I use, and I WILL USE
> Clean, for me it *is* free. I find it sli
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Arjan van IJzendoorn wrote:
> 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 aw
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes ("Re: Clean and Haskell"):
> Ian Jackson:
> > The operating system I run on my computers, Debian (www.debian.org),
> > consists only of software and documentation to which I have (or can
> > download) the source code, which I can use at wor
Ian Jackson defends Haskell, and attacks Clean for "obvious reasons"
Clean is not free, etc. :
> The operating system I run on my computers, Debian (www.debian.org),
> consists only of software and documentation to which I have (or can
> download) the source code, which I can use at work as well
On 06-Jan-2000, Arjan van IJzendoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason that GHC's compilation times are longer is that it is written in
> Haskell (as opposed to C for the Clean compiler).
Version 2 of the Clean compiler, which the Clean people have been
working on for the last year or two b
Steve Tarsk writes ("Clean and Haskell"):
> I just want to say that Haskell is a fat old slow
> dinosaur compared with Clean. Download Clean at
> www.cs.kun.nl/~clean and get rid of your Haskell
> installation.
Without getting into the merits of the languages per se, for me
Hello Steve,
> I just want to say that Haskell is a fat old slow
> dinosaur compared with Clean. [...]
By Haskell you probably mean the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC). And
compilation by GHC is certainly slower than by the Clean compiler. On the
other hand, the generated code is comparable, some
I might be slightly more inclined to look at Clean if it was free, not just
to people in educational environments.
Steve Tarsk wrote:
> I just want to say that Haskell is a fat old slow
> dinosaur compared with Clean. Download Clean at
> www.cs.kun.nl/~clean and get rid of your Haskell
> installation.
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
==
I do not appreciate offensive
I just want to say that Haskell is a fat old slow
dinosaur compared with Clean. Download Clean at
www.cs.kun.nl/~clean and get rid of your Haskell
installation.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.co
18 matches
Mail list logo