On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Andrew Coppin <[email protected]>wrote:
> Deniz Dogan wrote: > >> Recently there has been a lot of discussion on this list about the >> programming language Clean and converting Clean programs to Haskell. >> Reading the Wikipedia article on the language, I can't really see any >> major difference between that and Haskell, except for the monads vs. >> uniqueness types. >> >> So what's the deal with Clean? Why is it preferable to Haskell? Why is it >> not? >> >> > > As far as I can tell, Clean is to Haskell as C is to Pascal. I.e., Clean is > notionally very similar to Haskell, but with lots of added clutter, > complexity and general ugliness - but it's probably somehow more > machine-efficient as a result. > > (All of which makes the name "Clean" rather ironic, IMHO.) > > Of course, this is merely the opinion I formed after performing a cursory > scan of some of the introductory documentation. I haven't actually seen any > code written with it or anything, so my opinion probably doesn't mean a > lot... > > It's preferable to Haskell in situations where Haskell isn't the best choice. The criteria for that decision is different from problem to problem. Example: I had to implement a ring buffer, and I wanted the code using it to be written in Haskell. I ended up implementing the buffer in C, and wrapping it in FFI from Haskell because implementing a destructive array in Haskell is kind of unwieldy to someone of my experience level. In Clean, it looks like the uniqueness typing allows for destructive updates in a very controlled manner. Disciplined Disciple might be interesting to look at here too, but i'm not sure I'd deploy anything with DDC just yet :-) Dave > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
