Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> > This runtime just needs to be ported to other operating systems > > similarily to the Java runtime. > > So it's a question of either source availability - or at least a very > complete specification - or Microsoft strategy. With the SDK that you can download from MS comes a 500 page specifica

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 8:10 AM To: Tyson Dowd; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Craig Dickson Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:36:42 +1000 Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11-Aug-2000, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Fergus Henderson wrote: > > On 14-Aug-2000, Benjamin Leon Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ah, a testable hypothesis! If you are right, then you should be able to > > provide an example of a language that meets the requirements of writing > > both low-level kernel code and most user ap

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 14-Aug-2000, Benjamin Leon Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't believe you can teach programmers anything by > > trying to take > > tools away from them. > > > > I believe you can only teach programmers by showing them > > a better tool. > >

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Benjamin Leon Russell wrote: > Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11-Aug-2000, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > will be coming from C and C++ where it is perfectly > > > normal to do all sorts of things that the compiler > > > cannot guarantee to be safe. Thi

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:36:42 +1000 Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11-Aug-2000, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Antony Courtney wrote: > > > > > > > will be coming from C and C++ where it is perfectly > normal to do all sorts > > of things that the compiler cannot guar

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

On Fri 11 Aug, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > Erlang applications are characterised as being soft-realtime > applications: > > http://www.erlang.org/faq/x847.html#SOFT-REALTIME > > In one sentence, I would characterise this as ``it is fast > enough most of the time.'' This seems to be good

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

On Fri 11 Aug, Byron Hale wrote: > I don't mean that threads are non-deterministic, but that the execution > time of a GC thread seems to be non-deterministic. Large collections need > more time than small ones and the time required is some function of the > store to be collected, is it not? S

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

On Fri 11 Aug, Sengan wrote: > I don't buy this: for a long time the embedded hard realtime people > refused to use CPUs with cache because they would be > "non-deterministic". (I assume "non-deterministic" in this context means we can't determine the execution time of a bit of code, even knowing

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

On Fri 11 Aug, George Russell wrote: > However REALLY worst-time-bounded garbage collection is very expensive in > CPU time. (Is there anything better than Baker's train algorithm?) > In any case even if you do have garbage-collection, you will still need to > demonstrate that you won't run out o

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 13-Aug-2000, Sylvan Ravinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > > > will be coming from C and C++ where it is perfectly normal to do all sorts > > > of things that the compiler cannot guarantee to be safe. This leads to all > > > sorts of bugs such as buffer overflows, stack corruption, pa

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:53:39 +0800 Lyndon While <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 6:46 pm -0400 10/8/2000, Benjamin Leon Russell wrote: > >Somebody once wrote that a clearly written, > well-documented program > >that doesn't work is usually more valuable than a badly > written, > >poorly-document

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Hello, On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Tyson Dowd wrote: > > will be coming from C and C++ where it is perfectly normal to do all sorts > > of things that the compiler cannot guarantee to be safe. This leads to all > > sorts of bugs such as buffer overflows, stack corruption, page faults > > accessing unmap

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 11-Aug-2000, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antony Courtney wrote: > > > But Java also has a way to do "rampant pointer-level > > optimization": You declare a method as "native" and > > then implement it in C. > > That's hardly the same thing, though. Of course an FFI allows you

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:06:55 -0500 John David Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Replying to Fergus Henderson's complaints about > non-portable HMTL in the web > document at http://commnet.pdc.mscorpevents.com/sessions.asp, > R. S. Nikhil > writes: > > > And is Netscape Communicator 4.61 on Li

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 11-Aug-2000, Sylvan Ravinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, R.S. Nikhil wrote: > > And is Netscape Communicator 4.61 on Linux (bugs and all) a definitive > > test of portable HTML? :-) > > Actually it seems to be quite readable by lynx... Yes -- that's the worst part. In L

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> No. A definitive test is to submit the page to the validator at the World > Wide Web Consortium's web site (http://validator.w3.com/), which (not > surprisingly) finds 455 HTML errors, beginning with the absence of a document > type declaration. I bet you that 99% web pages

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Sylvan Ravinet wrote: > Do, or do not. There's no try. -Yoda Pedantic not to be, but in contractions speak, does Yoda not. Is quote, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'." Craig

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, R.S. Nikhil wrote: > And is Netscape Communicator 4.61 on Linux (bugs and all) a definitive > test of portable HTML? :-) Actually it seems to be quite readable by lynx... -Sylvan -- Do, or do not. There's no try. -Yoda Sylvan Ravinet: http://www.ravinet.com/sylvan/contact

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

I wrote: > ... http://validator.w3.com/ ... which should be http://validator.w3.org/. Sorry about that ... -- John David Stone - Lecturer in Computer Science and Philosophy Manager of the Mathematics Local-Area Network Grinnell College - Grinnell, Iowa 50112 - U

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Replying to Fergus Henderson's complaints about non-portable HMTL in the web document at http://commnet.pdc.mscorpevents.com/sessions.asp, R. S. Nikhil writes: > And is Netscape Communicator 4.61 on Linux (bugs and all) a definitive > test of portable HTML? :-) No. A definitive test

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

George Russell wrote: > (Is there anything better than Baker's train algorithm?) Sorry, I meant "treadmill" not "train". The train algorithm is an almost-bounded garbage collection algorithm. (However it fails to be properly bounded if you have large numbers of in-pointers to a node.)

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

Sengan wrote: > I don't buy this: for a long time the embedded hard realtime people > refused to use CPUs with cache because they would be > "non-deterministic". > They finally gave up, realizing that CPU's with caches are much faster. > If garbage collection is relatively cheap and makes it 10x f

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 11-Aug-2000, R.S. Nikhil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Fergus Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:18 AM > > ... > > > > In particular . > > However, as seems to be usual

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

> On Fri 11 Aug, Byron Hale wrote: > > Also, garbage collection is unlikely to satisfy any need > > for automatic memory management in real-time systems for the foreseeable > > future because an extra thread on a single processor is still > > non-deterministic. I don't buy this: for a long time t

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Antony Courtney wrote: > But Java also has a way to do "rampant pointer-level > optimization": You declare a method as "native" and > then implement it in C. That's hardly the same thing, though. Of course an FFI allows you do to all sorts of things, but at least it's very clear, from the fact

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> -Original Message- > From: Fergus Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:18 AM > ... > > In particular . > However, as seems to be usual (%*&^#*&^#@!) for MS, this page is NOT > written in portable HTML.

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

At 4:59 pm -0230 10/8/00, Theodore Norvell wrote: >With Haskell# or Mondrian: Can I use C# to create an instance of >a Haskell class? Can I use Haskell to extend a C# abstract class? >I suspect the answer to both these questions is currently no. >If future versions of .NET and Haskell variants cha

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 02-Aug-2000, Doug Ransom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The PDC slides and white papers should be available if you dig > through this site: > http://commnet.pdc.mscorpevents.com/default.asp In particular . However, as seems to be usual (%*&^#*&^

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 11-Aug-2000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > A good analysis of were C# fits re Java and C++ is at > > > > > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/09/161

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

Byron Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > At 05:21 AM 8/11/2000 +0100, you wrote: > >On Fri 11 Aug, Byron Hale wrote: > > > Also, garbage collection is unlikely to satisfy any need > > > for automatic memory management in real-time systems for the foreseeable > > > future because an extra thread on

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 10-Aug-2000, Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can download it here: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/#sdk > > > > There is a C# compiler and runtime environment in the SDK. > > > > Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, its click-through > license forbids disassembly, reve

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 10-Aug-2000, Theodore Norvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks to Nigel for answering my question > > Tyson Dowd wrote: > > > Microsoft indicates that C# will not support "genericity", through > > > even anything as crude as C++'s templates, so it is unlikely that > > > they will seek to su

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > My objection to the use of GC (and by implication all current Haskell > implementations) in embedded systems would be that if your program is > sufficiently complex/powerful that it can't be implemented as some kind > of _finite_ state machine, then it can

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Byron Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > At 06:46 PM 8/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >What bothers me most about C# is that although, at first glance, it seems > >to be a variation on Java, it doesn't follow the spirit of Java in at > >least one important respect. > > > >Specifically, one common a

Re: GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

At 05:21 AM 8/11/2000 +0100, you wrote: >On Fri 11 Aug, Byron Hale wrote: > > Also, garbage collection is unlikely to satisfy any need > > for automatic memory management in real-time systems for the foreseeable > > future because an extra thread on a single processor is still > > non-deterministi

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

At 6:46 pm -0400 10/8/2000, Benjamin Leon Russell wrote: >Somebody once wrote that a clearly written, well-documented program >that doesn't work is usually more valuable than a badly written, >poorly-documented program that does work because it can easily be >fixed and reused. Who wrote this?

GC in embedded systems (was Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime)

On Fri 11 Aug, Byron Hale wrote: > Also, garbage collection is unlikely to satisfy any need > for automatic memory management in real-time systems for the foreseeable > future because an extra thread on a single processor is still > non-deterministic. I'm not sure this is true, doesn't it depe

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A good analysis of were C# fits re Java and C++ is at > > > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/09/1612254&mode=thread > > Wherein we read: > > > One new feature that I mentioned alr

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Benjamin Leon Russell wrote: > > [example of an unsafe method in C#] > > Taken to an extreme, this ability could encourage some programmers to > ignore the spirit of higher-level abstraction and focus back on The Old > Way (TOW): rampant pointer-level optimization to squeeze out that extra > iot

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

At 06:46 PM 8/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >What bothers me most about C# is that although, at first glance, it seems >to be a variation on Java, it doesn't follow the spirit of Java in at >least one important respect. > >Specifically, one common advantage of both Haskell and Java is that they >en

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Benjamin Leon Russell wrote: > However, according to the C# Language Reference, > "For developers who are generally content with > automatic memory management but sometimes need > fine-grained control or that extra iota of > performance, C# provides the ability to write > “unsafe” code. Such code

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

What bothers me most about C# is that although, at first glance, it seems to be a variation on Java, it doesn't follow the spirit of Java in at least one important respect. Specifically, one common advantage of both Haskell and Java is that they encourage higher-order abstraction: Haskell thr

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 10-Aug-2000, Theodore Norvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With Haskell# or Mondrian: Can I use C# to create an instance of > a Haskell class? Can I use Haskell to extend a C# abstract class? > I suspect the answer to both these questions is currently no. I'm not sure either, but I think the a

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 10-Aug-2000, Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope they at least get rid of > the hungarian notation while they are at it. Yes, thankfullly they have indeed done that. That one got a round of applause even from the (mostly) Microsoft faithful who attended PDC, when it was mention

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Thanks to Nigel for answering my question Tyson Dowd wrote: > > Microsoft indicates that C# will not support "genericity", through > > even anything as crude as C++'s templates, so it is unlikely that > > they will seek to support functional programming languages in the > > short term. Perhaps t

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Brent Fulgham wrote: > Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, its click-through > license forbids disassembly, reverse engineering, and a > raft of other endeavors that one should be allowed if > they were truly interested in global acceptance. Well, this _is_ Microsoft, after all. > Of course, a

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> You can download it here: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/#sdk > > There is a C# compiler and runtime environment in the SDK. > Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, its click-through license forbids disassembly, reverse engineering, and a raft of other endeavors that one should be allow

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

: Brent Fulgham Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime On 09-Aug-2000, Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hopefully that won't be the case. However, I feel uncomfortable with > the whole .NET/C# situation. Like clockwork, MS releases yet anothe

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Florian Hard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How did they say on segfault.org: > >Microsoft plans to expand Marketese in the future, adding a pound sign >to every language currently in their suite of compilers and a plus >sign to every acronym currently used to describe Microsoft techn

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A good analysis of were C# fits re Java and C++ is at > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/09/1612254&mode=thread Wherein we read: > One new feature that I mentioned already was that of copy-by-value > objects. This seemingly s

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 09-Aug-2000, Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hopefully that won't be the case. However, I feel uncomfortable with > the whole .NET/C# situation. Like clockwork, MS releases yet another > new product that they claim will change the world. Meanwhile, there is > no C# implementati

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Theodore Norvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords > coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not > in the know. That's part of the masterplan ;-) > Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships > bet

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> So if all of you could get your weight together and publish an > experts' report on how the platform could be improved so that > your efforts could add value for its customers, that might have > quite some influence if you do it early enough (ask the Pizza > shop what it

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Leaving just a few random quotes, snipping lots of good and accurate technical-historical stuff] > Nigel Perry wrote: > > > > NGWS > > > > An older temporary name for .NET. NGWS? Never Goes Wonderfully Sucks? > > I think somebody shot the marketing

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

[discussion of benefits and otherwise of .NET, C#, ..] They have definitely managed to attract some attention, haven't they?-) If we put language and other wars aside for the moment, there are a few questions that haven't come up yet, the answers to which would interest me (and seem relevant for

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) writes: > Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:17:15 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > Haskell# > This is what worries me: modifying a bunch of languages to make them > incompatible with the rest of the world How did they say on segfault.org: Micros

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Nigel Perry wrote: > > NGWS > > An older temporary name for .NET. NGWS? Never Goes Wonderfully Sucks? > I think somebody shot the marketing guy and replaced him, she then > came up with ".NET" :-) Next Generation Windows Services (I think), as opposed to older generations such as the Win32 APIs

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

At 11:01 am -0230 9/8/00, Theodore Norvell wrote: >I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords >coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not >in the know. Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships >between > .NET The name for a whol

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

I've been following this discussion, but there are so many new buzzwords coming out of microsoft that it's a bit confusing for those not in the know. Is there a quick way to summarize the relationships between .NET NGWS C# (which I've discovered is intended to be pronounc

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

At 4:09 pm + 8/8/00, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: >Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:17:15 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > >> You hit the nail right on the head wrt to Haskell and .NET. This is >> precisely why I am working on Mondrian, which also goes under the name >> Haskell#, a pur

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:17:15 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > You hit the nail right on the head wrt to Haskell and .NET. This is > precisely why I am working on Mondrian, which also goes under the name > Haskell#, a pure, lazy functional language that seamlessly fits the .NET > type s

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

ansom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:44 PM Subject: RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime Back to the language wars then. It does seem like integration of Haskell and the NGWS is a graunch, largely because Haskell is not OO. Is there anyth

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Erhard Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime "Jürgen A. Erhard" wrote: > > >>>>> "Manuel" == Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Manuel> "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 12:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime We're drifting a bit off Haskell here, but... At 10:57 am +1000 4/8/00, Kevin Glynn wrote: >I don't believe this says anything about support for other O

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Chris Saunders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems to me that this .Net thingy is a runtime and therefore > could potentially be as portable as anything from Java. Potentially, yes. > This runtime just needs to be ported to other operating systems > similarily to the Java runtime. So it's

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Jürgen A. Erhard" wrote: > > > "Manuel" == Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Manuel> "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > >> [...] The lab is *sponsored* by Microsoft, but definitively not *at* > >> Microsoft. I doubt there are any Linux boxes at Micro

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> "Manuel" == Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Manuel> "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, >> > > The single Linux box we have in the Microsoft lab was severely hacked >> from >> > > the outside, they have moved to FreeBSD, which is supposed to be safer

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > The single Linux box we have in the Microsoft lab was severely hacked > from > > > the outside, they have moved to FreeBSD, which is supposed to be safer > (I > > > hope so). > > > > Morale: Never trust a Linux box at Microsoft :-) > > The lab is *s

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> > The single Linux box we have in the Microsoft lab was severely hacked from > > the outside, they have moved to FreeBSD, which is supposed to be safer (I > > hope so). > > Morale: Never trust a Linux box at Microsoft :-) The lab is *sponsored* by Microsoft, but definitively not *at* Microsoft.

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

"Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > I'm weird, but not a true 'CS' person. I run Linux -- do I > > need to move to NetBSD? > > The single Linux box we have in the Microsoft lab was severely hacked from > the outside, they have moved to FreeBSD, which is supposed to be safer (I > hope s

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> I'm weird, but not a true 'CS' person. I run Linux -- do I > need to move to NetBSD? The single Linux box we have in the Microsoft lab was severely hacked from the outside, they have moved to FreeBSD, which is supposed to be safer (I hope so). Erik

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> > Weird, nobody mentioned neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD... > > CS people are weird. :-) > > I consider myself a CS person and I run NetBSD on all my machines. > And I'm also weird. > I'm weird, but not a true 'CS' person. I run Linux -- do I need to move to NetBSD? -Brent

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Eduardo Nahum Ochs wrote: > > > Why have any other computer when you can have a Mac? > > > > > > Mine runs: > > > DVD Movies > > > MacOS > > > JVM > > > Playstation games > > > Windows 95 > > > Windows 2000 (a bit slugglish) > > > and could run: > >

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> > Why have any other computer when you can have a Mac? > > > > Mine runs: > > DVD Movies > > MacOS > > JVM > > Playstation games > > Windows 95 > > Windows 2000 (a bit slugglish) > > and could run: > > Linux (but I have no use for it at pre

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> Why have any other computer when you can have a Mac? > > Mine runs: > DVD Movies > MacOS > JVM > Playstation games > Windows 95 > Windows 2000 (a bit slugglish) > and could run: > Linux (but I have no use for it at present) I notice that y

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

We're drifting a bit off Haskell here, but... At 10:57 am +1000 4/8/00, Kevin Glynn wrote: >I don't believe this says anything about support for other OS's. I >think the devices here are hardware, (PCs, handhelds, phones, fridge >interfaces, ...) Of course Microsoft believes that some day, very

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

A few comments on this (stuff after the line beneath): The C implementation isn't really that inefficient. A factor of log(n) in average of course a factor of n i worst case. This doesn't change when using a lazy language! because of the nature of quicksort. As a matter of fact you have to have

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Why not Linux? Regards Chris Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Bill Halchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:49 PM Subject: Re: Haskell and t

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote, > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > > http://www.microsoft.com/net/ > > I still have not found anything suggesting that tools needed for > working with that (e.g. the common runtime) will be availa

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 03-Aug-2000, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not "at least" but "only". I haven't heard of plans for .NET on any > > non-Windows platform. > > Then you should listen more closely! a quote from the .NET whitepaper: > > Microsoft .NET proactively adapts to what you > want to

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

To Linux? :^) >From: "Chris Saunders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re:

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

: "Kevin Glynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime > &

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

I don't believe this says anything about support for other OS's. I think the devices here are hardware, (PCs, handhelds, phones, fridge interfaces, ...) Of course Microsoft believes that some day, very soon, all devices will run (a version of) Windows. Hence this statement refers to Microsoft

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

I agree. Bill Halchin >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime >Date: 3 Aug 2000 22:01:36 GMT > >Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > >

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:53:45 +0200, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > http://www.microsoft.com/net/ I still have not found anything suggesting that tools needed for working with that (e.g. the common runtime) will be available for non-Windows OSes. Who will make them? Microsoft? -- __(

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> nigel> Disclaimer, as Fergus added one: I am working with Microsoft on .NET > nigel> implementation, but I run Windows 2000 on my G3 PowerBook and take it > nigel> to Microsoft with me. I'm biased on everything :-) > > Windows 2000 in a G3 Powerbook? I am lost here :(( No, Nigel is not

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> Not "at least" but "only". I haven't heard of plans for .NET on any > non-Windows platform. Then you should listen more closely! a quote from the .NET whitepaper: Microsoft .NET proactively adapts to what you want to do, on any of your devices. This inversion of the traditional i

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:06:54 +0200, Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > More seriously as a number of languages are being produced to run > over .NET along with a whole slew of libraries it provides a good > platform to target your favourite research language at (for Windows > platforms at least

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Fergus wrote: > I guess one could argue that the costs of most other things pale > in comparison to the costs of having lazy evaluation as the default ;-) Of course, if you're the sort of person who likes to write "head (sort lst)" to get the least member of a list, then lazy evaluation is incre

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 03-Aug-2000, Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I understand that point, but if doing that means that you need to > >implement the basic things like argument passing and procedure > >calling yourself, using your own virtual machine, rather than > >by using the underlying runtime's argume

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> "nigel" == Nigel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: nigel> Disclaimer, as Fergus added one: I am working with Microsoft on .NET nigel> implementation, but I run Windows 2000 on my G3 PowerBook and take it nigel> to Microsoft with me. I'm biased on everything :-) Windows 2000 in a G3 Powerbo

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Well Erik & Fergus seem to be into a "my language/implementation" is better than yours battle ;-) while some others are confused as to what they're talking about. Not to prolong it, but let's see if I can clarify a few issues (ROTW: I wrote the Mondrian -> C# bit [and other odds'n'endz]) At 6

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> GOO is not a Microsoft invention, and nor is it part of Microsoft's > .NET stuff. GOO is an intermediate language that was, AFAIK, invented > by the Mondrian group. It might be described in the following paper: > > Erik Meijer and Koen Claessen. The Design and Implementation of >

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 02-Aug-2000, Carl R. Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The compiler hooks into GHC by translating Core into GOO > > > and then after some source to source transformations it > > > can spit out either C# or Java. > > Is there any publically

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

] Subject: Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The compiler hooks into GHC by translating Core into GOO > > and then after some source to source transformations it > > can spit out either C# or Java. Is there any public

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The compiler hooks into GHC by translating Core into GOO > > and then after some source to source transformations it > > can spit out either C# or Java. Is there any publically available technical information on what you guys are talking about? I

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

On 02-Aug-2000, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The plan is to have the release out the door by September 1st. > > > > Will that release support Haskell, or just Mondrian? > > The compiler hooks into GHC by translating Core into GOO > and then after some source to source transform

RE: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

> Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ^^ Yes, that refers to the computer lab sponsored by MSR Cambridge and MS Netherlands in Utrecht. > > The plan is to have the release out the door by September 1st. > > Will that release support Haskell, or just Mondrian? The co

Re: Haskell and the NGWS Runtime

Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ^^ > [someone wrote:] > > Does anyone know where there is some information on Haskell integration > > with the Microsoft NGWS runtime, which provides > > cross language integration and a common system for memory managment, > > library

  1   2   >