Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Brandon S Allbery KF8NH]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/2/10 03:33 , Permjacov Evgeniy wrote:
> Forth is quite easy to implement, but can it be used as extension
> language? Wiki describes it as quite low level...

It's low level but rather easy to build up more complex stuff.  It's never
been that popular in general due to its RPN nature, but is quite popular for
extensions in low memory situations:  it's *extremely* compact when
"compiled" (that is, when source code consisting solely of word definitions
is executed, the result is quite tiny).

To give one example of the latter, look at FreeBSD's boot loader.

- -- 
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl]  allb...@kf8nh.com
system administrator  [openafs,heimdal,too many hats]  allb...@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university  KF8NH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzUq3sACgkQIn7hlCsL25UxZwCePgTpKGFnxZB+AJHugIAkXSbd
FTUAnjl2FJEjyp9bxr3rh3Nmql3O0y22
=ncJH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Permjacov Evgeniy]

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
>
> There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language -
> bundling ghc is not necessary.
I still have not found haskell interpreter, that is written in pure
haskell and has good quality (i.e. stable, written in stable subset of
ghc haskell, is small and so on). I know, that there is
haskell-src(-ext), but interpreter (or at least compiler to ext-core) is
needed. However, it may be a way... if no other will be found.
>> It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such
>> languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
>
> We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers,
> and they love it.  They especially like the strong typing, which finds
> their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script.  The
> terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is
> another benefit.
I loved it as well and I was not programmer at that moment. However, I
spent about 30-40 evenings to learn it well enough. I wish language,
that can be learned in 3 evenings and used well enough for 3 days of
work... And many of it's fetures are not standardized yet.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Malcolm Wallace]

On 4 Nov 2010, at 17:52, Luke Palmer wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Malcolm Wallace > wrote:

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?


There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language -  
bundling

ghc is not necessary.


Do tell.


Well, our solution is not entirely off-the-shelf, and possibly not to  
everyone's taste or ability, but we wrote our own Haskell "compiler",  
and a bunch of auto-generation tools (and FFI magic) that expose the  
underlying application's APIs (written in both Haskell and C++) as  
import-able modules into the scripting-Haskell layer.


When I say "we", of course I mean Lennart, who may have some previous  
experience in writing Haskell compilers...


But this one is based on many freely available packages like haskell- 
src-exts and uniplate, so lots of the hard work had already been done  
for us.  And who knows, perhaps one day enough of the other parts of a  
basic compiler (name resolver, type checker, translator to core) might  
appear in Hackage to make it easy for anyone to write their own  
scripting engine.


Regards,
Malcolm
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Yves Parès]

> There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling
ghc is not necessary.

Even the program which is to run the scripts is compiled with GHC?
I am interested to know how you do that.


2010/11/4 Malcolm Wallace 

> ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
>>
>
> There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling
> ghc is not necessary.
>
>
>  It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such
>> languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
>>
>
> We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and
> they love it.  They especially like the strong typing, which finds their
> bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script.  The terseness and
> lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit.
>
> Regards,
>Malcolm
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Luke Palmer]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Malcolm Wallace  wrote:
>> ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
>
> There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling
> ghc is not necessary.

Do tell.

>> It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such
>> languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
>
> We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and
> they love it.  They especially like the strong typing, which finds their
> bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script.  The terseness and
> lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit.
>
> Regards,
>    Malcolm
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Malcolm Wallace]

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?


There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language -  
bundling ghc is not necessary.


It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers.  
Such

languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.


We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers,  
and they love it.  They especially like the strong typing, which finds  
their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script.  The  
terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is  
another benefit.


Regards,
Malcolm
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Bulat Ziganshin]

Hello Permjacov,

Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 9:04:00 AM, you wrote:

> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
> implemented. What such language may be?

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/HsLua
or python

-- 
Best regards,
 Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[John Lask]

On 2/11/2010 9:05 PM, Steffen Schuldenzucker wrote:

On 11/02/2010 10:40 AM, Yves Parès wrote:

Because he would have either to recompile the whole program or to use
things like hint, both implying that GHC must be installed on the user
side (600Mo+ for GHC 6.12.3)

Isn't there a way to use some stripped-down version of ghc and the base
libraries, providing only what the user really needs, in versions which
are known to work, and supply that together with the application?



there is hugs, which is a small, fast haskell interpreter. It is 
embeddable ( exposes a C api for embedding - it is written in C), 
supports many language extensions and can be stripped down (in terms of 
libraries) as far as you like, but is now often forgotten, overlooked in 
so far as haskell implementations go.



I'd love to use haskell as a configuration language, provide some
combinators and effectively get the rest for free.
But it is not acceptable for a user to go through the mess of installing
a ghc environment on, say, Windows, only to change some settings.



2010/11/2 Lennart Augustsson mailto:lenn...@augustsson.net>>

I don't understand. Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting
language?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy
mailto:permea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure
haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language
should be
> implemented. What such language may be?
> R(4/5/6)RS ?
> EcmaScript ?
> Some other ?
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org 
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org 
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe





___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Sterling Clover]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Donn Cave  wrote:

> The quotes around "scripts" are well chosen, since it sounds like
> you might be using the word in a different sense of `small program',
> vs. the extension language notion of a programmable UI.
>
> Haskell's suitability for something like this has come up before.
> The worries about its complexity and giant learning curve seem
> misplaced to me - as a scripting extension it would have less to do,
> so there would be less to learn, I think - but it's all hand-waving
> without more concrete ideas about the typical application.
>
> And it's a moot point if there's no way to do it.

If (and this is a big if) the type of extensions you want the user to
provide are well captured in a simple combinator-style DSL you can
write an AST and interpreter for, then as a first pass Read/Show over
the AST is sufficient. If the syntax and parser messages are too
confusing, then a parsec-based parser can get you the rest of the way.
Once you grok the principles, writing your own functional
mini-language in Haskell (including as an external DSL) is in many
ways more straightforward than binding to any sort of external
runtime.

That said, some sort of  slow but low-footprint "mini-hask" for
extension languages would be pretty awesome.

I'm seeing a function like -- evalMiniHask :: Environment -> String ->
Either ParseOrTypeError Dynamic.

where type Environment = ([DataRep], [FunctionRep]) and
type DataType = (String,TyCon,Dynamic) -- the latter being the
concrete type constructor, wrapped in a dynamic
type FunctionType = (String, TypeRep, Dynamic) -- the latter being the
concrete function, wrapped in a dynamic

I can see a number of use cases in my own code already

Cheers,
Sterl.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Brandon Moore]

> Henning Thielemann, Tue, November 2, 2010 6:11:02 AM
> 
> Yves Parès schrieb:
> > Because he would have either to recompile the whole  program or to use
> > things like hint, both implying that GHC must be  installed on the user
> > side (600Mo+ for GHC 6.12.3)
> 
> Hugs is great  for running small Haskell  "scripts".

Does Hugs provide an API for using it as an embedded interpreter?
Hugs might be sufficiently lightweight, but from quickly skimming the
docs it doesn't seem to be well documented.

Incidentally, I'd like to know how to use the GHC API to evaluate
expressions in terms of an existing context (and given that,
if it's possible to preserve a value across reloading a module).
Browsing the API documentation and trying to read the source for
ghci has been unsuccessful - even a pointer to the critical bit 
in ghci would be helpful.

Brandon




___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Henning Thielemann ,

> Hugs is great for running small Haskell "scripts".

The quotes around "scripts" are well chosen, since it sounds like
you might be using the word in a different sense of `small program',
vs. the extension language notion of a programmable UI.

Haskell's suitability for something like this has come up before.
The worries about its complexity and giant learning curve seem
misplaced to me - as a scripting extension it would have less to do,
so there would be less to learn, I think - but it's all hand-waving
without more concrete ideas about the typical application.

And it's a moot point if there's no way to do it.

Donn Cave, d...@avvanta.com
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Alexy Khrabrov]

Clojure!

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:31, Miguel Mitrofanov  wrote:

> Ehm... Forth? TCL?
> 
> Отправлено с iPhone
> 
> Nov 2, 2010, в 9:04, Permjacov Evgeniy  написал(а):
> 
>> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
>> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
>> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
>> implemented. What such language may be?
>> R(4/5/6)RS ?
>> EcmaScript ?
>> Some other ?
>> ___
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Henning Thielemann]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Henning Thielemann wrote:


Yves Parès schrieb:

Because he would have either to recompile the whole program or to use
things like hint, both implying that GHC must be installed on the user
side (600Mo+ for GHC 6.12.3)


Hugs is great for running small Haskell "scripts".


I like to add: Especially 'runhugs' runs a Haskell program in contrast to 
the interactive session of 'hugs'. You can also run Haskell programs with 
'runghc' but this needs more startup time and GHC certainly demands more 
resources.


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Henning Thielemann]

Yves Parès schrieb:
> Because he would have either to recompile the whole program or to use
> things like hint, both implying that GHC must be installed on the user
> side (600Mo+ for GHC 6.12.3)

Hugs is great for running small Haskell "scripts".


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Steffen Schuldenzucker]

On 11/02/2010 10:40 AM, Yves Parès wrote:
Because he would have either to recompile the whole program or to use 
things like hint, both implying that GHC must be installed on the user 
side (600Mo+ for GHC 6.12.3)
Isn't there a way to use some stripped-down version of ghc and the base 
libraries, providing only what the user really needs, in versions which 
are known to work, and supply that together with the application?


I'd love to use haskell as a configuration language, provide some 
combinators and effectively get the rest for free.
But it is not acceptable for a user to go through the mess of installing 
a ghc environment on, say, Windows, only to change some settings.



2010/11/2 Lennart Augustsson >


I don't understand.  Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting
language?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy
mailto:permea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure
haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language
should be
> implemented. What such language may be?
>  R(4/5/6)RS ?
>  EcmaScript ?
>  Some other ?
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org 
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org 
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
   


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Permjacov Evgeniy]

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?

The problem is that haskell is overkill here and it requires esoteric
extensions for some tasks (Rank2Types for reflection, for example). It
is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such
languages must be as plain and regular, as possible. So, statically
typed languages are out of consideration: they either have poor
expressive power, or have expressive, but  complex type system (as
haskell), or relies on hacks within language for some tasks(typecasts
and duck typing in c++). Scheme may be acceptable, and possibly
EcmaScript. I do not know any other acceptable standartized language. 
Yet, Scheme has really ugly synthax and Ecma-262 standard is 250 pages
long (Of course, it is not C++ with about 1000 pages in standart, but it
still hurts to read 250 pages of techdocs in foreign language).

On 11/02/2010 12:21 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I don't understand.  Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting language?
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy  wrote:
>> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
>> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
>> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
>> implemented. What such language may be?
>>  R(4/5/6)RS ?
>>  EcmaScript ?
>>  Some other ?
>> ___
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Yves Parès]

Because he would have either to recompile the whole program or to use things
like hint, both implying that GHC must be installed on the user side (600Mo+
for GHC 6.12.3)


2010/11/2 Lennart Augustsson 

> I don't understand.  Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting language?
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy 
> wrote:
> > Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
> > project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> > reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
> > implemented. What such language may be?
> >  R(4/5/6)RS ?
> >  EcmaScript ?
> >  Some other ?
> > ___
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Lennart Augustsson]

I don't understand.  Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting language?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy  wrote:
> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
> implemented. What such language may be?
>  R(4/5/6)RS ?
>  EcmaScript ?
>  Some other ?
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Stephen Tetley]

Norman Ramsey has implemented Lua as an extension language for ML,
this included actually writing a Lua interpreter not FFI-ing to the
standard Lua. He has a series of good papers about the mechanics of
exposing the API of an application to the scripting language.

The code itself is available as part of the C-- compiler suite.

Clean has Esther which is similar in spirit with a paper describing
its implementation, the code is in the standard distribution of Clean
though I think it has diverged a bit from the paper.

Finally if you end up considering Forth, Jerzy Karczmarczuk has a nice
paper describing implementations of stack languages very succinctly in
Haskell.

http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/
http://www.win.tue.nl/ipa/archive/falldays2003/vWeA2003-Esther.pdf
http://users.info.unicaen.fr/~karczma/arpap/Fdpe02/fumach.pdf
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Yves Parès]

Or maybe Lua?

There is already a Lua binding on Hackage.
I've been advised to use it when I was also looking for a scripting language
(and disadvised to use Scheme).

2010/11/2 Permjacov Evgeniy 

> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
> implemented. What such language may be?
>  R(4/5/6)RS ?
>  EcmaScript ?
>  Some other ?
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Gregory Crosswhite]

I haven't ever used it myself, but I've heard good things about Lua, 
which was designed to be an embedded scripting language for applications:


http://www.lua.org/

If you believe the Programming Language Shootout 
(http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/) it is pretty fast for a dynamic 
interpreted language, though JavaScript is much faster since the latter 
has more companies piling work into making it fast.


Cheers,
Greg

On 11/1/10 11:04 PM, Permjacov Evgeniy wrote:

Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
implemented. What such language may be?
  R(4/5/6)RS ?
  EcmaScript ?
  Some other ?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Permjacov Evgeniy]

Forth is quite easy to implement, but can it be used as extension
language? Wiki describes it as quite low level...
TCL ... Well, I'll consider it if it have written standart, like RxRS does.
On 11/02/2010 09:31 AM, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
> Ehm... Forth? TCL?
>
> Отправлено с iPhone
>
> Nov 2, 2010, в 9:04, Permjacov Evgeniy  написал(а):
>
>> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
>> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
>> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
>> implemented. What such language may be?
>> R(4/5/6)RS ?
>> EcmaScript ?
>> Some other ?
>> ___
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Miguel Mitrofanov]

Ehm... Forth? TCL?

Отправлено с iPhone

Nov 2, 2010, в 9:04, Permjacov Evgeniy  написал(а):

> Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
> project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
> reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
> implemented. What such language may be?
> R(4/5/6)RS ?
> EcmaScript ?
> Some other ?
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

[Permjacov Evgeniy]

Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell
project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a
reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be
implemented. What such language may be?
 R(4/5/6)RS ?
 EcmaScript ?
 Some other ?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe