--- robert dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As it turns out, there is a pretty large conceptual > gap between the > design of most object oriented libraries and > idiomatic Haskell. This > makes writing useful bindings in Haskell for such > libraries a tricky > business. If you want it to be easy, I'd say stick > with an OO language > that will more closely match the design (caveat: I > am not familiar with > the design of CS, but I assume it is OO because its > written in C++). If > you want to learn more about Haskell, then the ease > question takes a > back seat.
Thank you; that's what I was suspecting. In that case, I'll see if I can use the existing Java scripting support for the Crystal Space 3D libraries. > [comments deleted] > > As to performance, I suspect it would be OK, if you > were sufficiently > good with a profiler. Thank you; in that case, I should probably learn Haskell for my next project. Alternatively, if Sebastian Sylvan (or anybody else) completes the Haskell scripting support for Crystal Space 3D before I start actually using it, then maybe I'll learn Haskell much sooner. If only there were Haskell scripting support for Crystal Space 3D, Haskell would probably be the better choice overall to write the majority of the project. Many thanks, Benjamin L. Russell _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell