Jeremy Shaw schrieb:
> So, we are left with the (rather large?) group of people who do not
> know what Haskell is and probably do not really know what 'statically
> typed' or 'purely functional' really mean. In fact, I think that most
> non-haskell/ocaml/etc programmers view 'statically typed' as
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Tetley
wrote:
>
> If a "functional language" doesn't mean anything significant then
> Haskell probably isn't the language you should be choosing.
People who don't know what 'functional language' means can still get
all the benefits of functional programmin
Ketil Malde schrieb:
> Don Stewart writes:
>
>>> Good start, if only the "advanced" were replaced with something more
>>> characteristic, like "lazy", or "statically typed". Which, BTW, both do not
>
>> "lazy" and "statically typed" don't mean much to other people. They are
>> buzz words that me
Don Stewart writes:
>> Good start, if only the "advanced" were replaced with something more
>> characteristic, like "lazy", or "statically typed". Which, BTW, both do not
> "lazy" and "statically typed" don't mean much to other people. They are
> buzz words that mean nothing to many people.
But
On 16/10/2010 09:02 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 16 October 2010 08:09, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
And "purely functional programming language"?
If they mean anything to many people, it's that the language works
(i.e. functions). What language wouldn't work?
I think Ben has a strong point here
On 16 October 2010 05:52, Ben Franksen wrote:
> what marketing idiot has written this inclonclusive mumble-jumble of
> buzz-words?
> [...]
> How can anyone write such a
> nonsense? Haskell is not an "open source product"!
> [...]
> I am ashamed that it appears on the front page of my favourite
>
On 16 October 2010 09:02, Stephen Tetley wrote:
> On the main topic - I think the blurb is fine. If Python and Ruby want
> to do proselytization and value judgements please leave them to it.
PS - Were it me, I would drop the third sentence of the Haskell.org
blurb, to me it is a value judgement
On 16 October 2010 08:09, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
> And "purely functional programming language"?
>
> If they mean anything to many people, it's that the language works
> (i.e. functions). What language wouldn't work?
>
> I think Ben has a strong point here.
If a "functional language" doesn't me
> "Don" == Don Stewart writes:
>> Let me explain.
>>
>> "Haskell is an advanced purely functional programming language."
>>
>> Good start, if only the "advanced" were replaced with something
>> more characteristic, like "lazy", or "statically typed". Which,
>> BT
Quoth Ben Franksen ,
> Enough. I think I have made my point.
Yes, though possibly a little overstated it. While it's easy to share
your distaste for the blurb, if you take a generous attitude towards it,
most of it is "true enough."
The implementation specific features are at least widely avail
Great! It's a Friday. Why not step in.
Just some context, since the current blurb was born from a critique at
CUFP 2007, prior to which the Haskell blurb was:
"Haskell is a general purpose, purely functional programming
language. Haskell compilers are freely available for almost any
c
This is a critique of the current 'Haskell Blurb', the first paragraph on
www.haskell.org.
This blurb should, IMO, give a concise description of what Haskell, the
programming language, is, what makes it different from other languages, and
why I should be interested in it.
What it does, instead, i
12 matches
Mail list logo
