wren ng thornton wrote:
On 10/16/10 10:48 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
It is open source, and was born open source. It is the product of
research.
How can a language be open source, or rather, how can it *not* be open
source? The point of a (programming) language is that it
On 17/10/10 12:03, Ben Franksen wrote:
wren ng thornton wrote:
On 10/16/10 10:48 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
It is open source, and was born open source. It is the product of
research.
How can a language be open source, or rather, how can it *not*
wren ng thornton wrote:
On 10/16/10 11:22 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Much better. Though I *do* think mentioning the main implementations and
their qualities is a good thing to o, right after this:
[...]The most
important Haskell implementation, ghc [like to ghc page], has served as a
test bed
On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Still, Haskell is an open source product doesn't sound right to me.
Even Haskell is open source (without the product) has a bad ring
because source is short for source code and source code is not
something a programming language has.
How about
