Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-25 11:30:12 -0500, Mario S. Mommer said: In the realm of pure logic, ad hominems are logically invalid, period. We don't live in the realm of pure logic (whatever that would mean - pretty sure no human beings exist in the realm of pure logic, so there is no homo hominis to make an ad hominem argument against in the land of pure logic...) Here in the real world, no amount of the rigid application of pure logic is going to substitute for the very necessary social skill of inferring the motives of a participant to a debate. Again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies. JH has repeatedly trumpeted the virtues of languages whose adoption by others brings him financial gain, and repeatedly made pejorative statements about other languages in newsgroups for these other langauges, in a clear attempt to drum up clients for his training consultancy. Pure logic alone won't help you here; the ordinary human social skill of inferring a person's motives does. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes: I have to say I'm always amazed how ad hominens can generate quite strong responses to the point of making a lot of new faces (or mail accounts) suddenly appear... ;) Actually, I had just noticed that aspect as well. Is it just me, or does anybody else also think it rather curious how some of the new accounts all seem to share the same style of argument? Granted, I don't have anything the issue of arguing a point itself. However, it just seems rather unusual that many of the new faces all seem to share the same style of reasoning When I was a student at my college, one of the students once told me a secret about how a computer program ran by a professor for a course in introduction to systems programming checked to ensure that the students who were submitting homework assignments worked independently: the program counted the number of occurrences of each type of structure (for-loop, while-loop, if-then statement,etc.), and compared the counts for the types of structures among assignments between different students. The method was so effective that it was able to pinpoint one program among approximately thirty that was handed in by a student who had based his assignment on another program for the same assignment two years earlier, also among approximately thirty. A style of reasoning is like a fingerprint; it identifies the person making the argument. Of course, two people could have a very similar style of argument. However, the odds of this happening are less likely in a single thread. The odds of this happening are even less likely for three people in the thread. The odds of this happening are even less likely for three *new* people in the same thread at the same time -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
dekudekup...@yahoo.com (Benjamin L. Russell) writes: When I was a student at my college, one of the students once told me a secret about how a computer program ran by a professor for a course in introduction to systems programming checked to ensure that the students who were submitting homework assignments worked independently: the program counted the number of occurrences of each type of structure (for-loop, while-loop, if-then statement,etc.), and compared the counts for the types of structures among assignments between different students. Minor typo corrections: 1) computer program ran by - computer program run by 2) if-then statement,etc. - if-then statement, etc. (missing period) Incidentally, regarding the programming assignment, the student who was caught by the structural similarity checking program reportedly received an e-mail message from the professor asking to explain the similarity. He never replied to that message, and subsequently received a grade of 0 for that assignment. -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Oct 13, 9:09 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/... If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, .NET or javascript that I know of... Take R5RS Scheme and you get a language which doesn't allow you to get things done. Scheme is as far from Assembly as one language can be. Assembly exists to get things done, R5RS Scheme does not even allows you load native libraries of the underlying operating-system, does it? It's easy to stay small and clean when you don't have to dirty your hands with such crap as real-world applications development. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said: And furthermore, he has cooties. Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies. Financial conflict of interest is a prime example of a perfectly valid ad hominem argument. People who parse patterns but not semantics are apt to fall into the error of believing that ad hominem automatically means logically invalid. This is not the case. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 25 nov, 09:23, Elena egarr...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 9:09 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/... If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, .NET or javascript that I know of... Take R5RS Scheme and you get a language which doesn't allow you to get things done. Scheme is as far from Assembly as one language can be. Assembly exists to get things done, R5RS Scheme does not even allows you load native libraries of the underlying operating-system, does it? It's easy to stay small and clean when you don't have to dirty your hands with such crap as real-world applications development.- Ocultar texto das mensagens anteriores - assembly in the sense that it's what other languages could compile to. Like many are targetting javascript, the de facto assembly of the web... In any case, the original poster was advocating the opposite: to code in Scheme and compile it to more common backends, such as PHP or javascript... I misunderstood his point. But the flamewars that followed were far more entertaining anyway... :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said: And furthermore, he has cooties. Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies. Financial conflict of interest is a prime example of a perfectly valid ad hominem argument. It has limited validity. People are way more complicated than the simplistic follow your own selfish egoistic interests to the letter without taking prisoners model of human behavior that seems (unfortunately) so prevalent nowadays. People who parse patterns but not semantics are apt to fall into the error of believing that ad hominem automatically means logically invalid. This is not the case. In the realm of pure logic, ad hominems are logically invalid, period. However, if the question cannot be resolved by its own merits, simple logic has little to say, and you may include additional information in a sort-of Bayesian fashion. Saying that a conflict of interest means that nothing this person says makes any sense at all is in a way an admission that the subject of discussion is not very amenable to rational argument. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 25 nov, 14:30, m_mom...@yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) wrote: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said: And furthermore, he has cooties. Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies. Financial conflict of interest is a prime example of a perfectly valid ad hominem argument. It has limited validity. People are way more complicated than the simplistic follow your own selfish egoistic interests to the letter without taking prisoners model of human behavior that seems (unfortunately) so prevalent nowadays. People who parse patterns but not semantics are apt to fall into the error of believing that ad hominem automatically means logically invalid. This is not the case. In the realm of pure logic, ad hominems are logically invalid, period. However, if the question cannot be resolved by its own merits, simple logic has little to say, and you may include additional information in a sort-of Bayesian fashion. Saying that a conflict of interest means that nothing this person says makes any sense at all is in a way an admission that the subject of discussion is not very amenable to rational argument. I have to say I'm always amazed how ad hominens can generate quite strong responses to the point of making a lot of new faces (or mail accounts) suddenly appear... ;) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-23 11:34:14 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: You don't understand the implications of your own words: having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. is substantially different from render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. They are substantially the same, your jesuitical nit-picking notwithstanding; JH is an untrustworthy source on matters relating to the languages he sells training for. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 24, 1:10 pm, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-23 11:34:14 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: You don't understand the implications of your own words: having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. is substantially different from render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. They are substantially the same, your jesuitical nit-picking notwithstanding; JH is an untrustworthy source on matters relating to the languages he sells training for. And furthermore, he has cooties. --T warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 22, 5:12 pm, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered said: And you don't think that [JH] could write a book about Haskell if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung language? Until he actually does, he has a financial interest in trash-talking Haskell. This makes anything he says about Haskell suspect. The fact that he *didn't* mindlessly reject [musical note lang] in favor of [Irish Ship Of The Desert] when [musical note lang] came out (despite the fact that at the time his company was deeply (exclusively?) invested in [Irish Ship Of The Desert] and arguably had a vested interest in having [musical note lang] fail to gain support) suggests that he is able to fairly evaluate the merits of other languages. No, it suggests that he saw that supporting the Irish Ship Of The Desert meant going up against Microsoft, so he jumped to the MS supported variant of the Donut Dromedary. You miss the fundamental point; having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem. When a person poses an /argument/, nothing personal outside of the /argument/ is relevant. Thus, your claim that anything that person says ... is not only obvious hyperbole it is also illogical. It is a common refuge of those who cannot support their position with fact and logic. On more than one occasion Jon Harrop has all but crushed Ertugrul in this very forum with /source code/; that is as objective as it gets. KHD -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem. You don't understand ad hominem: The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Sometimes the person's conduct and motives *are relevant* to the point under discussion. Financial conflict of interest is a perfect example where it *is* legitimate and relevant to explore a person's motives and conduct outside of the debate. In this case, JH's conduct outside of the debate (i.e., the fact that he earns his living by selling tools and training for a particular set of languages) and his motives (i.e., he is therefore financially motivated to present these languages in the best possible light and to trash-talk other languages), render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 23, 10:34 am, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: On Nov 22, 5:12 pm, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered said: And you don't think that [JH] could write a book about Haskell if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung language? Until he actually does, he has a financial interest in trash-talking Haskell. This makes anything he says about Haskell suspect. The fact that he *didn't* mindlessly reject [musical note lang] in favor of [Irish Ship Of The Desert] when [musical note lang] came out (despite the fact that at the time his company was deeply (exclusively?) invested in [Irish Ship Of The Desert] and arguably had a vested interest in having [musical note lang] fail to gain support) suggests that he is able to fairly evaluate the merits of other languages. No, it suggests that he saw that supporting the Irish Ship Of The Desert meant going up against Microsoft, so he jumped to the MS supported variant of the Donut Dromedary. You miss the fundamental point; having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem. When a person poses an /argument/, nothing personal outside of the /argument/ is relevant. Thus, your claim that anything that person says ... is not only obvious hyperbole it is also illogical. It is a common refuge of those who cannot support their position with fact and logic. On more than one occasion Jon Harrop has all but crushed Ertugrul in this very forum with /source code/; that is as objective as it gets. You don't understand ad hominem: The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Sometimes the person's conduct and motives *are relevant* to the point under discussion. Financial conflict of interest is a perfect example where it *is* legitimate and relevant to explore a person's motives and conduct outside of the debate. In this case, JH's conduct outside of the debate (i.e., the fact that he earns his living by selling tools and training for a particular set of languages) and his motives (i.e., he is therefore financially motivated to present these languages in the best possible light and to trash-talk other languages), render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. You don't understand the implications of your own words: having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. is substantially different from render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. Do you understand how? Hint, see my comment regarding hyperbole and also consider the relationship between the qualifier anything and universal quantification. I think if you think a bit more carefully you will come to see how your original statement was indeed fallacious ad hominem. (And that specific example remains so regardless of which common approach to informal logic you take ie whether you choose one that is more or less sympathetic to ad hominem in general.) KHD -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:34:22 -0500 Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-23 10:08:12 -0500, Keith H Duggar said: There is a well-known name for such illogical reasoning: ad hominem. You don't understand ad hominem: Perhaps you don't understand it. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3] So, explain how motive makes the logic wrong in this case then. In this case, JH's conduct outside of the debate (i.e., the fact that he earns his living by selling tools and training for a particular set of languages) and his motives (i.e., he is therefore financially motivated to present these languages in the best possible light and to trash-talk other languages), render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. Fine. Suspect his arguments to the point that you examine them closely and then explain what you found erroneous in them. Don't just claim that we should dismiss them because of who made them. You know, it's just possible that Jon actually investigated Haskell before choosing to focus on CL. That would make his opinion carry more weight, not less. Remind me, how is this relevant to Python? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
Keith H Duggar dug...@alum.mit.edu wrote: It is a common refuge of those who cannot support their position with fact and logic. On more than one occasion Jon Harrop has all but crushed Ertugrul in this very forum with /source code/; that is as objective as it gets. Since Jon has financial reasons to invest time doing this and I don't, this is nowhere near crushing or objective. It's simply meaningless. If someone pays me for writing proof code or coming up with challenges, then I will, and I assure you, I would give him a hard time, since I'm an experienced Haskell programmer, who uses it for many different, practical purposes in the real world outside of academia. And I stated explicitly many times that (without being paid) I don't feel like wasting time proving my point to Jon, who would just come up with new arbitrary arguments and challenges anyway, as he does all the time. Jon doesn't and cannot acknowledge valid arguments, so it would be an ongoing, pointless cycle. After all, he was the only one posing stupid challenges on me at all, deliberately constructing problems to be easy to solve in his languages. When I would challenge him, the picture would change, but I think, this is stupid and infantile enough not to do it. In fact, I've even done it once and proved my point that way (which, as always, he didn't acknowledge, but I don't care anymore). Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife = sex) http://ertes.de/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 21, 10:38 pm, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote: Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote: Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu... That's nonsense. Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out there. Haskell is many things but simple is not one of them. If Haskell were half of the things you think it is, it would have more credible success stories. Jon, I don't care about your opinion, because it's biased. All opinions are biased. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said: All opinions are biased. All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually called a conflict of interest. Since JH makes his living selling tools and training for certain languages, he has a severe conflict of interest wrt asessing the value of various other languages. If these other languages are just as good or better than those he makes his living from, it would be very damaging to his livlihood for him to admit this fact. As a result, he is a completely unreliable source on the question. This is why judges must recuse themselves from both civil and criminal trials if they have some significant conflict of interest. The law recognizes that we cannot expect a fair judgement from someone who stands to profit significantly if the judgement goes one way or the other. Similarly, we cannot expect a fair judgement on the relative value of various language tools from a person whose livlihood depends on the audience choosing only those certain language tools that he sells services and training for. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 22 Nov 2010 06:26:34 GMT Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:57:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote: Perhaps we could take this thread to alt.small.minded.bickering now? Alas, my ISP doesn't carry that newsgroup. Where else can I get my mindless off-topic bitching if not for cross-posts from comp.lang.scheme and comp.lang.functional? *wink* alt.off-topic *wink* /W -- To reach me via email, replace INVALID with the country code of my home country. But if you spam me, I'll be one sour Kraut. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:38:53 +0100, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote: Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification. It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple doesn't mean easy. Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than other languages, which explains the low number of success stories. On the other hand, I'm doing rapid web development in it. I wonder how much that difficulty is innate, and how much is due to learning other languages first. I'm an old time CoBOL programmer, and know of quite a few people who tried to learn OO-CoBOL without much luck. The way to learn it was to forget it - learn OO with some other language, then come back to it later.We had to divorce ourselves from the old paradigm first. -- In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. - James Madison -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 22, 10:57 am, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:38:53 +0100, Ertugrul S ylemez e...@ertes.de wrote: Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification. It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple doesn't mean easy. Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than other languages, which explains the low number of success stories. On the other hand, I'm doing rapid web development in it. I wonder how much that difficulty is innate, and how much is due to learning other languages first. This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this isn't examined widely and systematically. We could learn something about how to teach programming and design languages this way, don't you agree? The OLPC might do some interesting things in this area but it is still one set of tools. More interesting might be to compare outcomes across a range of different tools, paradigms, syntaxes, and teaching strategies. I'm an old time CoBOL programmer, and know of quite a few people who tried to learn OO-CoBOL without much luck. The way to learn it was to forget it - learn OO with some other language, then come back to it later. We had to divorce ourselves from the old paradigm first. -- In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. - James Madison -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 22, 9:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said: All opinions are biased. All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually called a conflict of interest. Since JH makes his living selling tools and training for certain languages, he has a severe conflict of interest wrt asessing the value of various other languages. If these other languages are just as good or better than those he makes his living from, it would be very damaging to his livlihood for him to admit this fact. As a result, he is a completely unreliable source on the question. And you don't think that Jon Harrop could write a book about Haskell if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung language? The fact that he *didn't* mindlessly reject F# in favor of O'Caml when F# came out (despite the fact that at the time his company was deeply (exclusively?) invested in O'Caml and arguably had a vested interest in having F# fail to gain support) suggests that he is able to fairly evaluate the merits of other languages. Doubtless he has biases, but there is no reason to think that they are any greater than the bias of any programmer who has invested substantial amounts of time in becoming fluent in a particular language. This is why judges must recuse themselves from both civil and criminal trials if they have some significant conflict of interest. But an advocate isn't a judge. Nobody is handing down binding decisions here - they are just advocating their positions. It would be better to compare JH to a defense lawyer. You can't reject the defense's arguments just because the lawyer has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. the law recognizes that we cannot expect a fair judgement from someone who stands to profit significantly if the judgement goes one way or the other. Similarly, we cannot expect a fair judgement on the relative value of various language tools from a person whose livlihood depends on the audience choosing only those certain language tools that he sells services and training for. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote: This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this isn't examined widely and systematically. We could learn something about how to teach programming and design languages this way, don't you agree? I do. A study such as that would be more useful than how to teach languages - it could be useful in teaching other stuff as well. -- In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. - James Madison -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:25:34 -0800, scattered wrote: On Nov 22, 9:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said: All opinions are biased. All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually called a conflict of interest. Since JH makes his living selling tools and training for certain languages, he has a severe conflict of interest wrt asessing the value of various other languages. If these other languages are just as good or better than those he makes his living from, it would be very damaging to his livlihood for him to admit this fact. As a result, he is a completely unreliable source on the question. And you don't think that Jon Harrop could write a book about Haskell if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung language? Until he writes one, it is useless to speculate about what he could or could not do. There are some pretty good books on Haskell, lots of excellent resources online, and the online community is very supportive. Writing a book which adds significant value to that would not be a trivial undertaking. Best, Tamas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote: This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this isn't examined widely and systematically. We could learn something about how to teach programming and design languages this way, don't you agree? I do. A study such as that would be more useful than how to teach languages - it could be useful in teaching other stuff as well. yes, pity most children are (used to be) taught Basic first. Also, with a study like this, it's likely some children would be taught some lame language and others would be taught some industrial strength language and still others would be taught some esoteric language. I'm not sure it'd prove as much as we are hoping for -- as they are all Turing equivalent and the kids would be able to eventually do the task asked for in any of them -- but I'm sure some of those children would be mentally hurt for all their life. Poor pioneers :p JH, nice to have you back! :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 22, 8:45 am, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-11-22 08:12:27 -0500, markhanif...@gmail.com said: All opinions are biased. All opinions show some bias. Not all opinions represent what is usually called a conflict of interest. Maybe, but in the case of regulars on newsgroups like c.l.l, there are conflicts of interest that either don't or don't indirectly have to do with profiting off the popularity or perception of a particular programming language. Harrop is annoying is the same way that MatzLisp guy is annoying on c.l.l. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Nov 22, 12:28 pm, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee how...@brazee.net wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote: This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this isn't examined widely and systematically. We could learn something about how to teach programming and design languages this way, don't you agree? I do. A study such as that would be more useful than how to teach languages - it could be useful in teaching other stuff as well. yes, pity most children are (used to be) taught Basic first. Also, with a study like this, it's likely some children would be taught some lame language and others would be taught some industrial strength language and still others would be taught some esoteric language. This is not worse than the status quo, which does exactly that, but without paying attention to outcomes. What I am proposing is doing it systematically, with observation. Then we can learn something. I'm not sure it'd prove as much as we are hoping for -- as they are all Turing equivalent and the kids would be able to eventually do the task asked for in any of them -- but I'm sure some of those children would be mentally hurt for all their life. Poor pioneers :p JH, nice to have you back! :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 2010-11-22 11:25:34 -0500, scattered said: And you don't think that [JH] could write a book about Haskell if he honestly came to think that it were a superior all-aroung language? Until he actually does, he has a financial interest in trash-talking Haskell. This makes anything he says about Haskell suspect. The fact that he *didn't* mindlessly reject [musical note lang] in favor of [Irish Ship Of The Desert] when [musical note lang] came out (despite the fact that at the time his company was deeply (exclusively?) invested in [Irish Ship Of The Desert] and arguably had a vested interest in having [musical note lang] fail to gain support) suggests that he is able to fairly evaluate the merits of other languages. No, it suggests that he saw that supporting the Irish Ship Of The Desert meant going up against Microsoft, so he jumped to the MS supported variant of the Donut Dromedary. You miss the fundamental point; having a financial interest in the outcome of a debate makes anything that person says an advertisement for his financial interests, not a fair assessment. Doubtless he has biases, but there is no reason to think that they are any greater than the bias of any programmer who has invested substantial amounts of time in becoming fluent in a particular language. Just the opposite. A person who makes his living by being paid to program in a language he has developed some expertise in (rather than selling books on it and training for it) has no financial interest in seeing others develop expertise in it - they would just represent competition. By contrast, one who sells training and books for a language profits directly when others take an interest in that language. Their financial interests are in fact opposite. JH profits when people take an interest in languages he sells training for; a working lisp programmer sees additional *competition* when someone else develops expertise in common lisp. But an advocate isn't a judge. Nobody is handing down binding decisions here - they are just advocating their positions. Now you're arguing our point; JH is an *advocate* with a clear conflict of interest which prevents him from presenting anything but the most one sided, and therefore largely useless, assessment. His writing should be seen as a paid advertisement, not as a fair treatment of programming languages. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu... That's nonsense. Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out there. Haskell is many things but simple is not one of them. If Haskell were half of the things you think it is, it would have more credible success stories. Cheers, Jon. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote: Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu... That's nonsense. Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out there. Haskell is many things but simple is not one of them. If Haskell were half of the things you think it is, it would have more credible success stories. Jon, I don't care about your opinion, because it's biased. If you were to advocate Haskell in any way, you would lose money. So you must fight it where possible. This makes all your postings about Haskell (and many other languages) meaningless and reading them a waste of time. Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification. It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple doesn't mean easy. Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than other languages, which explains the low number of success stories. On the other hand, I'm doing rapid web development in it. After all there aren't many CL success stories either, but Paul Graham's story [1] speaks for itself. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife = sex) http://ertes.de/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 11/21/2010 11:38 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote: Jon Harrop use...@ffconsultancy.com wrote: Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote in message news:20101014052650.510e8...@tritium.streitmacht.eu... That's nonsense. Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out there. Haskell is many things but simple is not one of them. If Haskell were half of the things you think it is, it would have more credible success stories. Jon, I don't care about your opinion, because it's biased. If you were to advocate Haskell in any way, you would lose money. So you must fight it where possible. This makes all your postings about Haskell (and many other languages) meaningless and reading them a waste of time. Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification. It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple. Note that simple doesn't mean easy. Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than other languages, which explains the low number of success stories. On the other hand, I'm doing rapid web development in it. After all there aren't many CL success stories either, but Paul Graham's story [1] speaks for itself. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html Perhaps we could take this thread to alt.small.minded.bickering now? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon 2011 Atlanta March 9-17 http://us.pycon.org/ See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:57:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote: Perhaps we could take this thread to alt.small.minded.bickering now? Alas, my ISP doesn't carry that newsgroup. Where else can I get my mindless off-topic bitching if not for cross-posts from comp.lang.scheme and comp.lang.functional? *wink* -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '='), which are not
syntactic sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which
it makes sense to be infix. The fact that you sold them as
syntactic sugar or perlisms proves that you have no idea about the
language, so stop crying. Also Python-style significant whitespace
is strictly optional. It's nice though. After all most Haskell
programmers prefer it.
it still makes haskell code scattered with perlisms, be it syntax or
function name... in practice, Haskell code is ridden with such
perlisms and significant whitespace, and infix function application
and more special cases. All of these contribute to a harder to parse
language [...]
So what? The quality of a language isn't measured by the difficulty to
parse it. Haskell has certainly more syntactic special cases than
Scheme, but I don't care, because they are /useful/.
[...] and to less compilers for it.
That's an arbitrary and wrong statement. The reason why there aren't
many Haskell compilers is that Haskell needs a good run-time system and
a lot of algorithms, which you wouldn't need in languages like Scheme
(including typed Scheme), which have a comparably simple type system.
Also you have to deal with laziness, and ideally you would want to write
a smart optimizer. This is easier for other languages.
But what's the matter? GHC is BSD-licensed. Derive your project from
it, if you are, for some reason, not happy with it.
And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a
very irregular syntax...
What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
Haskell compiler called 'gcc'. That's the GNU C compiler.
ORLY?
do you understand what a comparison is?
Sure, sure. I'd probably say that, too, in your situation. ;)
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only
one. It's just the one most people use, and there is such a
compiler for all languages.
yeah, there's also some Yale Haskell compiler in some graveyard, last
time I heard...
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Implementations
Greets,
Ertugrul
--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife = sex)
http://ertes.de/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes: On 13 out, 19:41, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes: On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/... If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, Yep, it only has two for java. I hope those are not Clojure and Qi... :p No, they're CLforJava and ABCL. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '='), which are not syntactic
sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
to be infix. The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
perlisms proves that you have no idea about the language, so stop
crying. Also Python-style significant whitespace is strictly optional.
It's nice though. After all most Haskell programmers prefer it.
it still makes haskell code scattered with perlisms, be it syntax or
function name... in practice, Haskell code is ridden with such
perlisms and significant whitespace, and infix function application
and more special cases. All of these contribute to a harder to parse
language and to less compilers for it.
And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a very
irregular syntax...
What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
Haskell compiler called 'gcc'. That's the GNU C compiler.
ORLY?
do you understand what a comparison is?
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only one. It's
just the one most people use, and there is such a compiler for all
languages.
yeah, there's also some Yale Haskell compiler in some graveyard, last
time I heard...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-ii/ If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, .NET or javascript that I know of... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes: On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-ii/ If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, Yep, it only has two for java. .NET or javascript that I know of... -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote: Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, .NET or javascript that I know of... What exactly is friggin' huge and complex about Haskell, and what's this stuff about a very own monolithic gcc? Haskell isn't a lot more complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more complex. Reduced to bare metal (i.e. leaving out syntactic sugar) Haskell is one of the simplest languages. Since recent versions of GHC produced code is also very small. The only downside of Haskell is that the popular VMs like JVM and .NET are not supported. But that's also because their type systems are very incompatible. Haskell can express types, which they can't express. The only thing I could imagine to bring the worlds together is another foreign function interface, a JFFI and a VESFFI. In my opinion Scheme is not the one true high-level language. For me personally Haskell gets much closer to this. For others it's probably Common Lisp or something else. Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife = sex) http://ertes.de/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote: What exactly is friggin' huge and complex about Haskell, and what's this stuff about a very own monolithic gcc? Haskell isn't a lot more complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more complex. Reduced to bare metal (i.e. leaving out syntactic sugar) Haskell is one of the simplest languages. yeah, like scheme, it's essentially evaluation of lambda expressions. Unlike scheme, it's got a huge plethora of syntatic sugar as big and complex as a full numeric tower. Such is the fear to avoid parentheses at all costs that they allowed lots of perlisms into the language ($ . `` = etc) plus python's significant whitespace. So, in practice, even though at the core it's as simple as scheme's core, at practice it's so mindnumbing complex that only one implementation is worth of note. And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a very irregular syntax... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
On 13 out, 19:41, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes: On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko ole...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever. Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work are welcome. Thanks! My current approach is to take an existing Scheme implementation and hijack into its backend. At this moment Scheme code is converted to some representation with a minimal set of bytecodes, and it should be quite easy to compile this representation to a target language. After some research, the main candidates are Gambit, Chicken and CPSCM: http://uucode.com/blog/2010/09/28/r5rs-scheme-as-a-virtual-machine-i/... If there is an interest in this work, I could publish progress reports. -- Oleg Parashchenko o...@http://uucode.com/http://uucode.com/blog/ XML, TeX, Python, Mac, Chess it may be assembler, too bad scheme libs are scattered around written in far too many different flavors of assembler... It warms my heart though to realize that Scheme's usual small size and footprint has allowed for many quality implementations targetting many different backends, be it x86 assembly, C, javascript or .NET. Take python and you have a slow c bytecode interpreter and a slow bytecode .NET compiler. Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its very own scary monolithic gcc. When you think of it, Scheme is the one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends -- CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java, Yep, it only has two for java. I hope those are not Clojure and Qi... :p -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
What exactly is friggin' huge and complex about Haskell, and
what's this stuff about a very own monolithic gcc? Haskell isn't
a lot more complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more
complex. Reduced to bare metal (i.e. leaving out syntactic sugar)
Haskell is one of the simplest languages.
yeah, like scheme, it's essentially evaluation of lambda expressions.
Unlike scheme, it's got a huge plethora of syntatic sugar as big and
complex as a full numeric tower. Such is the fear to avoid
parentheses at all costs that they allowed lots of perlisms into the
language ($ . `` = etc) plus python's significant whitespace. So,
in practice, even though at the core it's as simple as scheme's core,
at practice it's so mindnumbing complex that only one implementation
is worth of note.
That's nonsense. There is only little syntactic sugar in Haskell. And
all of them make your life considerably easier. You get multiple
function clauses instead of an explicit 'case', which makes your
functions much more readable. You get 'do'-notation for monads, which
makes (many) monadic computations much easier to read. And you get
support for infix functions with a very clean syntax. That's about all
the syntactic features you use in general.
BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '='), which are not syntactic
sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
to be infix. The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
perlisms proves that you have no idea about the language, so stop
crying. Also Python-style significant whitespace is strictly optional.
It's nice though. After all most Haskell programmers prefer it.
Further Scheme lacks these:
* A powerful type system,
* lazy evaluation,
* non-strict semantics,
* easy, straightforward to use concurrency,
* easy, straightforward to use parallelism and
* much more.
I'm not saying Scheme is a bad language (I recommend it to beginners),
but it doesn't beat Haskell in any way, at least for me, and in contrast
to you I /can/ make a comparison, because I have used both productively.
And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a very
irregular syntax...
What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
Haskell compiler called 'gcc'. That's the GNU C compiler. There is the
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only one. It's
just the one most people use, and there is such a compiler for all
languages. Many Schemers use Racket, for example.
You never used Haskell seriously, so stop complaining.
Greets,
Ertugrul
--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife = sex)
http://ertes.de/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
