Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi all,
Thank you for all the information on my previous question. I learned a
lot, and good pointers to more info.
My next question is about speed. How fast would you consider Haskell?
(say, for computational work). How would you compare it to C, Python and
Ruby?
I
Hi all,
Anyone here familiar with the Clean programming language?
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~clean/
It looks /very/ similar to Haskell, both in functionality and syntax.
I would be grateful for any sort of comparison. I'm trying to decide
which language I should try to learn.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been able to build ocaml everywhere I have wanted it, including
the native code compiler.
And it builds itself much faster than GHC.
(I couldn't measure how much, because GHC didn't build at all, failing
to find HsBaseConfig.h.in.)
--
__(
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
hi-boot files can't contain class declarations. This should be checked,
but isn't, hence puzzling message.
GHC 6.4 has a better setup. Actually, it still doesn't check for
absence of class decls, but it will shortly.
This means it is impossible to
I'm afraid so, as of today. It's the kind of thing that could get fixed
if enough people wanted it, but at the moment it's pretty low on the
list.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| Henning Thielemann
| Sent: 04 May 2005 10:31
|
If you want to compare Haskell and Clean then take a look at Object
I/O library. It is ported to Haskell and you can learn a lot comparing
both implementations. I spent a lot of time translating Clean
functions to Haskell and my own impression is that Haskell's do
notation is much more easier that
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm afraid so, as of today. It's the kind of thing that could get fixed
if enough people wanted it, but at the moment it's pretty low on the
list.
Mutual dependent classes in separate modules are a consequence of
rigorously defining exactly one class
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi all,
Anyone here familiar with the Clean programming language?
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~clean/
It looks /very/ similar to Haskell, both in functionality and syntax.
I would be grateful for any sort of comparison. I'm trying to decide
which language I should try to learn.
I
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:11:37AM -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi all,
Anyone here familiar with the Clean programming language?
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~clean/
It looks /very/ similar to Haskell, both in functionality and syntax.
I would be grateful for any sort of comparison. I'm
Furthermore, the Haskell page says that ghc produces fast programs.
So I would guess that Haskell is faster than Python, but not as fast
as C.
Would that be correct?
Usually yes.
In a sense. I think it's important to remember that what matters is
performance of a whole application, not
Hi Jerzy,
Thank you for your thorough response. I will archive it and come back to
it as a reference. As I learn more about FP features (e.g. Monads) I'll
be able to get more from your description.
But just a quick note:
4. A general observation about the use of both languages by a beginner who
John Hughes wrote:
Benchmarks give a very one-sided view, ignoring the large effect that
ease of programming can have on the final system's performance.
Good point. Ease of programming helps you make /correct/ programs
quicker, and some times allows you to use more advanced algorithms that
you
Daniel,
If it is syntactical simplicity that you like you might want to learn
Scheme as an introduction to FP. I'm no expert on either Scheme or
Haskell, but we all have to agree it is an elegant language. I'm
currently teaching myself the two in parallel, and I find that scheme is
sort of
On 2005-05-03, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting challenge would be to rewrite fftw in haskell, and see how
close one could come to the performance of the original... :)
What precisely do you mean by that? FFTW is C code generated by OCaml?
Do you want to retarget ti so that
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2005-05-03, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting challenge would be to rewrite fftw in haskell, and see how
close one could come to the performance of the original... :)
What precisely do you mean by that? FFTW is C code generated by OCaml?
Do you
Bryce Bockman writes:
If it is syntactical simplicity that you like you might want to learn
Scheme as an introduction to FP. I'm no expert on either Scheme or
Haskell, but we all have to agree it is an elegant language. I'm
currently teaching myself the two in parallel, and I find that
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 22:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryce Bockman writes:
Scheme is strict, so it lacks some of the flexibility (and drawbacks)
that come from Laziness, but in the book they teach you how to build a
Lazy version of Scheme, which is instructive in understanding what's
I was trying to draw an analogy between imperitive and functional language
development over time. In both cases we seem to have a progression
towards More complicated type systems etc. That was really my only point.
To say C is to Imperative languages as Scheme is to functional languages
does
From: Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:47:21 +0200
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 22:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryce Bockman writes:
Scheme is strict, so it lacks some of the flexibility (and drawbacks)
that come from Laziness, but in the book they teach you
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
We may have a different copy of SICP, but in mine (2nd edition) there is
Chapter 4.2 Variantions on a Scheme -- Lazy Evaluation and in particular
4.2.2 An Interpreter with Lazy Evaluation.
Here's the direct link:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:20:20PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2005-05-03, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting challenge would be to rewrite fftw in haskell, and see how
close one could come to the performance of the original... :)
What precisely do you mean by that?
There is also Template Haskell vs MetaOCaml.
For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why Template Haskell is untyped, while MetaOCaml is fully typed. Which is
the main reason I write meta-program in MetaOCaml and 'other' programs in Haskell.
There is the additional aspect that my
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Franksen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryce Bockman writes:
Don't confuse categories please. SICP doesn't say how to make a lazy
variant of Scheme. Applicative protocol is not normal protocol, the
reduction is, as
I tried to run Conal Elliott's Vertigo demos, on 3 diffferent XP boxes;
it ran on none. The error is Common Language Runtime Services -
Appication has generated an exception that could not be handled.
Process id=, Thread id=. Any suggestions?
http://conal.net/Vertigo/
John
On 5/5/05, Atwood, John Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to run Conal Elliott's Vertigo demos, on 3 diffferent XP boxes;
it ran on none. The error is Common Language Runtime Services -
Appication has generated an exception that could not be handled.
Process id=, Thread id=.
On 5/3/05, Ben Lippmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many aspects of functional programming are generalisations of what goes
on in imperative languages.
Huh? In which sense is that?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
26 matches
Mail list logo
