The new tutorial
http://felix-lang.org/web/nutut/intro/intro_index.fdoc
is going well. However if you want the latest version you have to run
webserver
and use
http://localhost:1234/
My access to felix-lang.org is restricted by poor connections.
Builds stop due to loss of ssh link up to 20 t
On 22/12/2012, at 11:28 AM, GitHub wrote:
>
> Log Message:
> ---
> Tee in spipes. Tangler program.
PART1: STATUS QUO
==
Ok so this now works: you write a file:
tut.fdoc
and you can use the tangler program to make
tut.flx
tut.expect
So you c
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 17:51 -0400, Chris King wrote:
> Now I don't know enough about C++ to judge how much of the template
> system's functionality the typical C++ programmer uses, but I'd guess
> most programmers use it for nothing more than polymorphic type safety
> and could transition to Felix
On 4/26/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just try to tell one of the people that like 'meta-programming'
> that it is a load of rubbish and that templates are one of
> the things Felix deliberately replaces (with parametric
> polymorphism and typeclasses) .. well of course I'm going
> to ge
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:47 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> On 4/26/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've found an issue being that each time you (John) come to
> illustrate how to use Felix to do something real, it involves
> seemingly magical bindings to C or C++. If those are explained
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:47 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
>
> All potentially interesting, but what it needs, IMO, is detailed
> examples that motivate why a C++ user would want to read on,
> and explanations of why Felix has chosen the approaches it
> has.
This is hard for me!
My personal motiv
On 4/26/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given an intended market of C++ programmers, is Felix
being taught in the wrong order?
For that audience (and I'll hold myself up as an example),
probably. The actual presentation is more suited to people
coming from something like Ocaml, IMO.
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 11:24 -0400, Chris King wrote:
> On 4/26/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given an intended market of C++ programmers,
>
> I don't really see Felix's target being "C++ programmers" per se, but
> more so "people who would really rather program in some other language
On 4/26/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given an intended market of C++ programmers,
I don't really see Felix's target being "C++ programmers" per se, but
more so "people who would really rather program in some other language
but need the speed / libraries / etc. that C++ offers". At lea
Given an intended market of C++ programmers, is Felix
being taught in the wrong order?
The current approach is: it's an standalone language with
it's own types and semantics, and the C++ binding details are
are introduced afterwards to show how to roll your own
semantics.
Would it be better to re
10 matches
Mail list logo
