On 21 May 2004 01:07, John Sharley wrote: > I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site > (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx) > <quote> > Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain > niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can > quickly turn into problems that require a PhD. to solve. > </quote> > > Are the Microsoft Research people working on GHC or anyone else on > this list also of this opinion? If so, why? > > What if anything does the quoted remark mean for the prospects of > seeing a production Haskell compiler from Microsoft?
A response from the author of that page (Don Syme, also here at MSRC): On 21 May 2004 15:00, Don Syme wrote: > I've removed the offending line, since I didn't mean to be > inflammatory. I believe it to be true - writing a GUI library > wrapper for Win32 is fairly simple in C#, pretty hard in F#, and > really quite researchy in Haskell - but others obviously don't agree. > > Replaced with > > Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent > within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist with language > interoperability between lazy and strict languages. > > I believe that is uncontroversial. Forward this to the Haskell list > if you like. Change should propagate to research.microsoft.com > sometime soon. > > Cheers > > Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
