On May 6, 2004, at 6:59 PM, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
I think someone wrote a book about multi-media
apps in Haskell (I've seen a chapter somewhere
from Conal Elliot) but I don't remember what it
was.
Probably Paul Hudak's The Haskell School of Expression.
http://www.haskell.org/soe/
I had
Sound on linux tends to center around the jack sound
architecture. This is a demon for connecting audio and midi gadgets
as it were by jack-leads. From a brief look, it seems very callback
oriented. It seems to be highly thought of by knowledgable audio
types, and the bee's knees for low
It could be fun to figure out ways of writing jack-clients and
plugins in Haskell. Would it be difficult, or stupid? Are
callbacks to Haskell from C a problem?
Callbacks to Haskell are very easy using the ffi extension supported by Hugs,
GHC and NHC.
If components are standalone apps,
On Wednesday 05 May 2004 04:46, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
http://www.haskell.org/libraries and look at how many seperate GUI
libraries there are - I counted 16 - then ask what made the developer
for the 16th one choose to start over.
The fact that the 16th one is a wxwindows binding justifies this
On May 3, 2004, at 5:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got an interesting task this week for my job. (Note that this
will undoubtably last for longer than a week). I'm evaluating several
high-level languages as development vehicles for our next suite of
applications. The languages I'm
I'm finding wxHaskell very nice, and a wxWidgets
binding is something many other advanced languages
don't have (even OCaml). The only downside is having a
'Hello World' GUI application with 7 Mb... but it runs
quite well and smooth once it's loaded.
---
[]s, Andrei de A. Formiga
---
David Roundy wrote:
I think that sounds like a good idea (not doing a GUI just yet) but would
recommend that perhaps you could do something pretty impure in terms of
file or directory browsing. That wouldn't involve going beyond the
standard libraries, but might give you some idea of the
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Frank Atanassow wrote:
Frankly, I think it's completely unrealistic to expect to be able to
fairly evaluate Haskell in 32 hours. As you noted yourself, Scheme and
Erlang, being strict, are much closer to conventional programming
languages than Haskell is, so it's easier to
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 11:27:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, but I talked to a friend who has similar
feelings but is actually pretty good at Common Lisp. He suggested I
refocus my energies, and I agree: instead of biting off more than I can
chew, and
Mike,
I'm evaluating several high-level languages as development
vehicles for our next suite of applications.
.. just code some really simple problems.
Like the Sieve of Eratosthenes, in all three languages.
Or a simple publish/subscribe framework with a master
state holder and many slaves. Or
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Bill Walsh wrote:
I am amazed that you can even think of doing anything in a week.
I have been at it for at least 15 years: one project; one dead set
proof-of-concept .
Well I'm sure you're doing something much more useful/worthwhile than I!
=)
I understand that the
11 matches
Mail list logo
