bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Thomas,
Sunday, July 8, 2007, 2:36:43 AM, you wrote:
This is certainly true. I've coded up in less than six months,
something that uses better algorithms and finer grained concurrency
than the software I used to work on, and the latter represented 5 or
more
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:23 , Thomas Conway wrote:
I've been working in a mostly Python shop this last year, and it
reinforces my belief that people who don't like strong static typing
are yahoos, not professionals interested in producing high quality
code. Maybe I just don't get the line between
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 13:39 +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
Well, Haskell clearly has a well developed IRC community.
Using Google to search Usenet posts in 2007:
Haskell:21000
Lisp: 29000
Erlang: 2500
Ocaml:
On 7/7/07, Albert Y. C. Lai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-strict (most implementations lazy): rarely useful if you ask the
mainstream.
mild-rant
Of your propositions, I must say this one has the most merit, though
not exactly as stated. :-) Being non-strict does allow some nice
expressiveness,
On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Thomas Conway wrote:
the performance model for haskell programs is at best inscrutable
I punched my first Basic program by hand with a paper clip, in my
high school library. Even after experiencing an APL interpreter at
19, it has taken half my life to fully
On 7/8/07, Dave Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This of course sets up the best answer to this debate: For a hard
problem, one can express better algorithms in Haskell that would
simply be too painful to code in other languages, swamping any
considerations about the speed of Haskell versus C for
trebla:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I just try to avoid *all* language extensions - mainly
because most of them are utterly incomprehensible. (But then, perhaps
that's just because they all cover extremely rare edge cases?)
Haskell is an extremely rare edge case to begin with.
