I have hypothesised a pure, lazy language on the JVM and perhaps the
.NET CLR with FFI to .NET/Java libraries. I foresee various problems but
none that are catastrophic; just often requiring a compromises,
sometimes very unattractive compromises. I have authored several
libraries in the same vain a
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:42:26AM +1000, Tony Morris wrote:
> I have hypothesised a pure, lazy language on the JVM and perhaps the
> .NET CLR with FFI to .NET/Java libraries. I foresee various problems but
> none that are catastrophic; just often requiring a compromises,
> sometimes very unattract
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:16 PM, John Meacham wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:42:26AM +1000, Tony Morris wrote:
>> I expect others have forethought and perhaps even experimented with such
>> a language. Are there any dangers to be wary of that undo the entire
>> endeavour?
>
> There have been a
About a year ago, Jeroen Leeuwenstein and I worked on CLR backend for
the Utrecht Haskell Compiler (UHC) [1].
That was a one-month project for a seminar at Utrecht University, and
the backend is far from being complete. But we did make some
interesting observations.
A particular caveat of the UHC
Tom Lokhorst wrote:
> Also, I wonder if there is some efficient way of implementing the
> Lazy class, perhaps by having the Force method using runtime code
> generation to override itself. I don't know if this is possible, but
> I vaguely remember the Dynamic Language Runtime on .NET doing
> somet
Perhaps this is similar to what you're looking for.
http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.html
It's a pure, lazy language for the JVM. I haven't used it myself, but I
would imagine that
it would have a Java FFI.
Cheers,
- Tim
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Tony Morris wrote:
> I have hyp
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:16 PM, John Meacham wrote:
>
> > I expect others have forethought and perhaps even experimented with such
> > a language. Are there any dangers to be wary of that undo the entire
> > endeavour?
>
> There have been a couple papers published on it, the main sticking point
>
I don't think it's pure. I would definitely use a pure language on the JVM, but
IIRC Open Quark / Cal is an impure language. For example, from the library
documentation: "printLine :: String -> ()".
-chris
On 9 feb 2010, at 15:31, Tim Wawrzynczak wrote:
> Perhaps this is similar to what you're
Oops, you're right. It's not pure. Mea cupla for not reading more
closely. I wonder how it deals with I/O, then? I don't see anything like
Haskell's monads or Clean's uniqueness typing... but at a closer look it
does appear to have an excellent Java FFI.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Chris
On 10/02/2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Wawrzynczak wrote:
> Oops, you're right. It's not pure. Mea cupla for not reading more closely.
> I wonder how it deals with I/O, then? I don't see anything like Haskell's
> monads or Clean's uniqueness typing... but at a closer look it does appear
> to have
10 matches
Mail list logo
