Hi Neil, Just to say, I agree with Brian totally! I've been (violently and
forcefully) exposed to MOF tools in the past, and at every turn my thought was "the Haskell would be clearer, shorter and executable!"
This is true only for programming in the small, isn't it? Furthermore, from my point of view Haskell code is very clear if we talk about computations, in contrast the dependencies of data modelling are harder to overview. Humans just like pictures :) Not everybody is a hardcore Haskell hacker.
Brian, but don't you think that you have to write a lot > of boilerplate code in Haskell? Can you give an example? Usually higher order functions, monads, laziness etc can combine to make the boilerplate minimal, if not invisible. This is exactly the kind of problem haskell-cafe will excel at.
I do not mean the code per se. I was talking more about structure, modules, comments, ... Haskell hackers have invented a lot of cool stuff to make their life easier, however this stuff often is complicated to understand :-) or not standard compliant. If you can generate Java code from a model, why on earth would you
then want to generate Haskell code from it? I see know reason to use the assembly language called Haskell vs the assembly language called Java - since if you are compiling a model to anything, it is just serving as an assembly language.
Hmph, how to disprove this argument? Say, you have generated ddl-code from an ER-model and now want to generate Haskell data structures that operate on this data. How would you procede? This is similar to HaXML that helped you to generate Haskell types for an xml schema. Best regards, Steffen -- Dipl.-Inform. Steffen Mazanek Institut für Softwaretechnologie Fakultät Informatik Universität der Bundeswehr München 85577 Neubiberg Tel: +49 (0)89 6004-2505 Fax: +49 (0)89 6004-4447 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
