Hey!
I need to call haskell DLL's from a c++ program,
and this C++ is written in Microsoft's Visual C++ 6.0
I created the DLL sing the directives given at ghc
user's guide (11.3 and 11.4) and created the dll. To create a .lib import
file, I linked with the option
-optdll--output-lib
-optdl
Andrew J Bromage wrote (on 03-12-02 09:52 +1100):
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:26:06AM +0100, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
> > well I love design patterns, it's just that in Haskell-land
> > they are called higher-order functions, or polymorphic functions, etc.
>
> Can I safely translate that as "
> > There's too much mathematics in it, I'm only an engineer... ;-)
Perhaps I should rephrase:
> There's too much mathematics in it, I'm not a mathematician
> reminds of what I think is one of the biggest problems with
> conventional
> software development: the lack of appreciable mathematics i
Hi, Bill.
I agree 90% with you in your questioning the adequateness of trying to
incorporate design patterns in Haskell, and the actual productive use of
them in other languages as well.
But, I must defend design patterns, and Haskell, a bit...
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002
[Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
> Furthermore, design patterns come with a set of informal hints about when and
> where to apply the pattern. The notion of HOF is, of course, completely
> neutral about this, except insofar as the type system forces you to provide a
> HOF where a function i
> size. while there's really no substitute for experience, i really
> believe we could benefit from some patterns.
There was a list of design patterns for Haskell on the Wiki (back in
the days when it worked):
http://haskell.org/wiki/wiki?CommonHaskellIdioms
--KW 8-)
--
Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on 03-12-02 18:18 +0100):
> Perhaps I should rephrase:
> > There's too much mathematics in it, I'm not a mathematician
..and later...
> > lot of mathematics. One of the things I like about FP is that it
> > demands more mathematical sophistication of its practitioners, whi
G'day all.
Just to clarify...
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:42:21PM -0500, David Bergman wrote:
> But, design patterns are clearly overestimated as a tool for (indirect)
> code production, you are right in that.
Absolutely agreed. Design patterns are little more than:
- A common language
I shamelessly copy from the abstract of [1]:
We contend that design patterns can be an effective means of
consolidating and communicating program construction expertise for
functional programming just as they have proven to be in
object-oriented programming. One might suppose that the powerful
ab
"Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, as a small token, I've revised my original plan and will now buy one
> of the printed versions (I shall also place higher priority on submitting
> to JFP in the future;-). Let's support forward-looking publishers!
>
> Thanks, Simon, and thanks, Con
10 matches
Mail list logo
