jur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 25, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Johannes Waldmann wrote: > >> Dear all, in the "mission statement" I read >> >>> We will strive to only include tried-and-true language features, >> >> but the current discussion seems to have a wider focus, >> i. e. it is more of a wish list. Indeed I think that this is a good >> idea (ask (future) Haskell users what they want) >> but it might not be the original goal of the Haskell-Prime effort. > > Hello, > > I have been on this mailing list since yesterday, so maybe this > has been addressed before. > > My first question is: who are the future users of Haskell? > > For instance: is this group homogenuous enough to define a single > standard, or would it be advisable to define various layers in the > language.
No language can serve all of the people all of the time, but I think we should just do our best with a single standard. I think that the complexity of multiple languages / layers / standards would not be worth the payoff. > A compiler may then choose to support up to and including a number > of layers. I can imagine a compiler for students to learn > functional programming with to have seriously different demands from > the compiler used by researchers to do programming language > research. I am usually not happy with the fact that novice > programmers pay in clarity (of type error messages and diagnostics > in general) for features they won't be using for a number of years. > This choice can be left up the compiler builder, but I think it > might have a place here too. Have you looked at the Helium language / compiler? It's a stripped-down version of Haskell for teaching. Maybe that's what you're actually suggesting? I think this is a great idea :) peace, isaac _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
