On 14 Jan 2010, at 14:42, Matthias Görgens wrote:
>> All Lisps have "special forms" which are evaluated uniquely and differently
>> from function application and are therefore reserved words by another name.
>> For example, Clojure has def, if, do, let, var, quote, fn, loop, recur,
>> throw, t
>
> But after that im lost :(
>
> Is there any general advice? Just keep reading the book till it drills into
> my big head?
Is it that you're having difficulty knowing how you'd solve certain classes of
problems using Haskell? You're stuck in an imperative rut?
The O'Reilly book "Real World H
>>
>
> Anonymous classes in Java close over their lexical environment (can
> refer to variables in that lexical environment, with values bound at
> the time of instance construction) with the caveat that only local
> variables/parameters marked as 'final' may be referred to. Aside from
> the hor
On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins
> wrote:
> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
> true (although technically speaking it is possible). That said, nobody's
> yet to present a convincing argumen
On 12 Jan 2010, at 22:22, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Niklas Broberg wrote:
>>> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
>>> and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
>>>
>>
>> 21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
>> imp
On 12 Jan 2010, at 21:25, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> OK people, it's random statistics time!
>
> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall" and
> "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.) So how does that
> compare to other languages?
>
> C: 32
> C++: 62
On 7/18/07, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 23:26:08 Hugh Perkins wrote:
> Am I the only person who finds it interesting/worrying that there are few
> to no people in the group who are ex-C# programmers. I mean, you could
> argue that C# programmers are simply too s
On 7/17/07, Thomas Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/18/07, Hugh Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the only person who finds it interesting/worrying that there are few to
> no people in the group who are ex-C# programmers. I mean, you could argue
> that C# programmers are simply too
On 7/17/07, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 19:43:51 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
>On 7/17/07, Martin Coxall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Me too, which is why I find your statement that expertise in C++ is
>>easy to acquire. Seeing som
On 7/17/07, Bayley, Alistair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ???
>
> help
> haskell for web code
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Applications_and_libraries/Web_programming
Try a few of these out (whatever meets your needs). For w
And this is where I think Haskell has it all over C++, Java, and the
rest. Haskell is easy to learn at a simple level, and hard to learn at
the expert level, but once learned is very powerful and has excellent
payoffs in terms of productivity. With C++ or Java, the expertise is
somewhat easier to
> Well they've been written in both Haskell[1], and C#[2], so VB might
> not be out of the realm of possibility (in fact, I think any language
> that compiles to CIL is fine for [2])!
Ah, but that's really VB.Net rather than proper Old School VB. VB.Net
is just C# in a flowery frock.
My point s
Ah, the secret of Haskell is to make low-level-looking code run slower
than high level code so that people write high-level code.
The secret of programming is to know which tools to use for which job.
If you're writing device drivers in Visual Basic, you've made a
strategic misstep and need to
13 matches
Mail list logo
