On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Ch. A. Herrmann wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
...
The notation
[f x | x - xs]
describes operations on list elements, and looks like the imperative
forall x in xs do f x,
whereas
map f xs
is a list transformation. The second one is more abstract,
Hi,
Henning Thielemann wrote:
...
The notation
[f x | x - xs]
describes operations on list elements, and looks like the imperative
forall x in xs do f x,
whereas
map f xs
is a list transformation. The second one is more abstract, isn't it?
for that simple example yes, but what's about
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Ch. A. Herrmann wrote:
Concerning the point someone made about the features of Haskell:
* pattern matching: just case distinction
* list comprehensions: syntactic sugar
These are indeed local syntactic issues but the amount of such small things
is essential to make
Hello Ch.,
Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 7:31:00 PM, you wrote:
thus I think I will stay away from using it but argue with
concrete abstraction features.
Concerning the point someone made about the features of Haskell:
* pattern matching: just case distinction
* list comprehensions:
Hello Max,
Monday, September 25, 2006, 10:41:20 PM, you wrote:
Ch That's a religious statement. I was looking for some strong
Ch arguments for the nonbelievers that Haskell is a 5GL.
But what about nonbelievers in language classification by generation?
i was not on the market when 1..3 GLs
Hello Bill,
Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 1:03:02 AM, you wrote:
I spent some time working on a large Prolog application where
performance was critical,
...
I think you're right that Haskell should
be in the same bag as Prolog.
and Haskell is the same as C++ when performance is critical,
Hi,
an experienced person at our lab told me that the classification
into generations has become unfashioned in the last decade;
thus I think I will stay away from using it but argue with
concrete abstraction features.
Concerning the point someone made about the features of Haskell:
* pattern
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Christoph Herrmann wrote:
I'm looking for an honest classification. The aim of the GLs is,
as I think, the degree of abstraction. The question is, how much
*intelligence* provided by preprocessing, libraries etc. is permitted.
Personally, I think Haskell should be a 5GL
Herrmann
Sent: 25 September 2006 21:22
To: Max Vasin
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Is Haskell a 5GL?
...
What Prolog really provides concerning automatic problem solving
is little: equation solving in term algebra; you can simulate that
in Haskell without much
Ch == Ch A Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ch Hi,
Hello,
I'd say very strong, lots of times a where is used thats making
use of laziness.
Ch I don't agree: where is often only used to program in a top-down
Ch style
I would say in a more declarative style, the where is closer to thinking
Ch == Ch A Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's a BottomthGL language :)
Ch That's a religious statement. I was looking for some strong
Ch arguments for the nonbelievers that Haskell is a 5GL.
But what about nonbelievers in language classification by generation?
As already mentioned you
Max Vasin wrote:
Ch == Ch A Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's a BottomthGL language :)
Ch That's a religious statement. I was looking for some strong
Ch arguments for the nonbelievers that Haskell is a 5GL.
But what about nonbelievers in language classification
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 22:22 +0200, Christoph Herrmann wrote:
. . .
What Prolog really provides concerning automatic problem solving
is little: equation solving in term algebra; you can simulate that
in Haskell without much effort. On the other hand, I saw Haskell
classified as a 3GL. The
13 matches
Mail list logo
