On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 18:29 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
There is also Template Haskell vs MetaOCaml.
For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why Template Haskell is untyped,
while MetaOCaml is fully typed. Which is
the main reason I write meta-program in MetaOCaml and 'other' programs
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 18:29 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
There is also Template Haskell vs MetaOCaml.
For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why Template Haskell is untyped, while MetaOCaml is fully typed. Which is
the main reason I write meta-program
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been able to build ocaml everywhere I have wanted it, including
the native code compiler.
And it builds itself much faster than GHC.
(I couldn't measure how much, because GHC didn't build at all, failing
to find HsBaseConfig.h.in.)
--
__(
There is also Template Haskell vs MetaOCaml.
For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why Template Haskell is untyped, while MetaOCaml is fully typed. Which is
the main reason I write meta-program in MetaOCaml and 'other' programs in Haskell.
There is the additional aspect that my
On 2005-05-03, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcin just mentioned OCaml as another functional programming language I
should keep in mind.
Can anyone offer an opinion on how Haskell and OCaml compare? Is OCaml
as easy to learn as Haskell? Does it have much the same virtues?
I
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd say that there are probably no features OCaml has that Haskell
lacks that are worth mentioning.
Its type system has some interesting features: polymorphic variants,
parametric modules, labeled and optional arguments, objects, variance
annotations of
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
...
Its type system has some interesting features: polymorphic variants,
parametric modules, labeled and optional arguments, objects, variance
annotations of type parameters used for explicit subtyping.
It has more convenient exceptions:
Marcin gives a good capsule description of the differences between ocaml
and haskell. Let me add my two cents.
I also learned ocaml before learning haskell, and the biggest single
difference I found is that haskell is a lazy, purely functional language
and ocaml is a strict, mostly functional
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also learned ocaml before learning haskell, and the biggest single
difference I found is that haskell is a lazy, purely functional language
and ocaml is a strict, mostly functional language.
Indeed.
In contrast to this one, my differences were not
On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also learned ocaml before learning haskell,
I'm a long term C, Python and (yuck) C++ programmer who picked up Ocaml
about 9 months ago. I picked Ocaml over Haskell because I thought I
needed objects, but I have
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:40:13PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
That leaves one aspect of Haskell vs Ocaml I don't yet understand.
What are the advantages of lazy evaluation?
The advantage of lazy evaluation is that evaluation order becomes one
less thing you have to think about. The
11 matches
Mail list logo
