On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 07:46:15PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 12:01:16 PM, you wrote:
there are also many other similar issues, such as lack of good syntax
for for, while, break and other well-known statements,
On the other hand you have an ability to
Hello Tomasz,
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 1:15:39 PM, you wrote:
while (hGetBuf h buf bufsize == bufsize)
crc := updateCrc crc buf bufsize
break if crc==0
print crc
inContT $ callCC $ \break - do
flip execStateT 0 $ do
whileM (liftM (== bufsize) (hGetBuf h
The 70's and early 80's were very different in terms of information
propagation. I really miss some the journals available back then,
because the editors really did their jobs, both in selecting and
helping to convey, information.
OO did get oversold. The same way that putting it on the internet
C# [..] has all the problems of language created by committee
Whereas Haskell has all the benefits of a language created by committee!
Actually, wasn't C# largely created by one man, Anders Hejlsberg?
- Neil
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:46:27AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
2. it bites me too. it's why i say that C++ is better imperative
language than Haskell.
there are also many other similar issues, such as lack of good syntax
for for, while, break and other well-known statements,
On the other
Hello Neil,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 11:09:06 AM, you wrote:
C# [..] has all the problems of language created by committee
Whereas Haskell has all the benefits of a language created by committee!
Actually, wasn't C# largely created by one man, Anders Hejlsberg?
C# 1.0 may be nice
Hello Tomasz,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 12:01:16 PM, you wrote:
there are also many other similar issues, such as lack of good syntax
for for, while, break and other well-known statements,
On the other hand you have an ability to define your own control
structures.
i have a lot, but
Hello Neil,
Friday, January 26, 2007, 8:13:43 PM, you wrote:
evolution of programming languages. In particular they identify
composability, concurrency and FP as being important trends. However their
focus is on borrowing features of FP and bringing them into mainstream
imperative languages;
Hello Tim,
Saturday, January 27, 2007, 6:14:01 AM, you wrote:
He brings up a very good point. Using a monad lets you deal with
side effects but also forces the programmer to specify an exact
ordering.
1. it's just a *syntax* issue. at least, ML's solution can be applied:
x - .y + .z
where
Hello Tim,
Saturday, January 27, 2007, 10:23:31 PM, you wrote:
Humm. While I can accept that this is a valid criticism of Haskell's monadic
structure for dealing with I/O, I fail to see how it could drive a decision
to prefer an imperative language like C#, where every statement has this
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 19:02, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Tim,
Saturday, January 27, 2007, 10:23:31 PM, you wrote:
Humm. While I can accept that this is a valid criticism of Haskell's
monadic structure for dealing with I/O, I fail to see how it could drive
a decision to prefer an
Tim Newsham wrote:
I have to write:
do {
x - getSomeNum
y - anotherWayToGetANum
return (x + y)
}
even if the computation of x and y are completely independant of
each other.
I too have really missed a parallel composition operator to do
something like the above.
Jacques Carette wrote:
Tim Newsham wrote:
I have to write:
do {
x - getSomeNum
y - anotherWayToGetANum
return (x + y)
}
even if the computation of x and y are completely independant of
each other.
I too have really missed a parallel composition operator to do
On Friday 26 January 2007 22:14, Tim Newsham wrote:
impractical language, only useful for research. Erik Meijer at one point
states that programming in Haskell is too hard and compares it to
assembly programming!
He brings up a very good point. Using a monad lets you deal with
side
Humm. While I can accept that this is a valid criticism of Haskell's monadic
structure for dealing with I/O, I fail to see how it could drive a decision
to prefer an imperative language like C#, where every statement has this
property (overspecification of evaluation order).
True.. perhaps his
No doubt many of you will have seen the interview[1] on Channel9 with
Anders Hejlsberg, Herb Sutter, Erik Meijer and Brian Beckman. These are
some of Microsoft's top language gurus, and they discuss the future
evolution of programming languages. In particular they identify
composability,
impractical language, only useful for research. Erik Meijer at one point
states that programming in Haskell is too hard and compares it to assembly
programming!
He brings up a very good point. Using a monad lets you deal with
side effects but also forces the programmer to specify an exact
17 matches
Mail list logo
