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
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 away
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++
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
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 language.
"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
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
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
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.
[...]
It seems
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
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 work as well at home, to
w
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 but
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 and
many other people
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 might be slightly more inclined to look at Clean if it was free, not just
to people in educational environments.
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,
16 matches
Mail list logo
