Well, THERE's two good entries! :^)
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:21:21 +0100, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > clearly this guy has never seen Phil Wadler.
>
> Some people may find this tasteless - I thought it was funny, so I
> guess those people will find me tasteless also. In that ca
> clearly this guy has never seen Phil Wadler.
Some people may find this tasteless - I thought it was funny, so I
guess those people will find me tasteless also. In that case, I'm
probably already in their kill files, so this won't offend anybody.
http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killer
G'day all.
Quoting Jeremy Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think this article is right-on when it comes to explaining why
> haskell has not yet succeeded (it even mentions haskell):
>
> http://khason.biz/blog/2004/12/why-microsoft-can-blow-off-with-c.html
I don't think so at all. Sure, Simon P-J d
At Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:00:18 -0500, GoldPython wrote:
>> Has anyone tried presenting the language to the average rank and file
>> programming community? If so, was it successful? If not, is there
>> interest in doing so?
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:01:32PM -0800, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> I think this
At Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:00:18 -0500,
GoldPython wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
> Has anyone tried presenting the language to the average rank and file
> programming community? If so, was it successful? If not, is there
> interest in doing so?
I think this article is right-on when it comes to explaining why
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:30:11AM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> What's unfortunate here is probably that the files are lying around in the
> same directory as the sources. E.g. the build system of Modula-3 uses a
> directory structure like this:
>
> Project
>LINUXLIBC6 - object files a
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Brian Smith wrote:
> FWIW, I use a directory structure like:
> src/ source code
> build// intermediate files (.hi, .o)
> dist/ deliverables
> I execute GHC using:
> ghc --make Main -isrc -hidir build -odir build -o dist/program
> As a result, I nev
Well, looking at perl/python/PHP (as in LAMP), I would say the trick is
to pick
an application area and make it extreemely easy to use the language in
that area,
as well as trivial to install and maintain the language support.
Of course the fact that perl/python/php all picked web-services (acti
I find myself agreeing with the implied likely response to all of the
points you raise below.
I'd say that any attempt to proselytize Haskell (or any new technology)
needs to start from a clear view of one kind of application that it is
particularly good for. Then, focus on building a "bridgeh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> However if there is a desire to make Haskell more accessible to the majority
> of programmers then the first impressions that I, and those like me have is
> important.
Sure. I'm also pretty new to Haskell & ghc concerned to see Haskell used by
mor
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Sven Panne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The original observation was that the compiler seems archaic. When
> > asked, I gave some general comments. What I should have just said was
> > that it was to much like a C compiler. Which, no matter how neat you
> > think it i
> > > > When I compile it I get three files, an actual runnable binary (at only
> > > > 5M in size), a .o file and a .hi file. I'm sure these additional files
> > > > are usefull in someway and as soon as I come across the right piece of
> > > > documentation everything should make sense. But as a
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote
Your newer-is-better premise makes little sense. Haskell is a far
"newer" language than Java; many aspects of Haskell's design are no
older than Haskell, while nearly all aspects of Java's design have
been around in other languages for decades. You might as well be
argui
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original observation was that the compiler seems archaic. When
asked, I gave some general comments. What I should have just said was
that it was to much like a C compiler. Which, no matter how neat you
think it is, is archaic.
Hmmm, using the number of files generated f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>When I use javac every file that is created is necessary for the
>application to run. This can't be said of the ghc compiler. Having an
>excuse that this is way the C compiler does it or that this is the way
>its always been done is to poor of a reason to even argue agains
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original observation was that the compiler seems archaic. When
asked, I gave some general comments. What I should have just said was
that it was to much like a C compiler. Which, no matter how neat you
think it is, is archaic.
Archaic doesn't mean that it's bad. :)
Wh
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(snip)
> someone else wrote:
> > gcc of course leaves .o files lying around, so this is no different than C.
(snip)
> When I use javac every file that is created is necessary for the
> application to run. This can't be said of the ghc compiler. Having a
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Non-technical Haskell question
> From: "Keith Wansbrough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, December 06, 2004 9:00 am
> To: "Georg Martius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Ja
> > When I compile it I get three files, an actual runnable binary (at only
> > 5M in size), a .o file and a .hi file. I'm sure these additional files
> > are usefull in someway and as soon as I come across the right piece of
> > documentation everything should make sense. But as a person new to t
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:26:49AM +, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
> >Aren't the Hackage and Cabal projects supposed to lead to something
> >like that? http://www.haskell.org/cabal
> Looks like your right, I thought cabal was just a library packaging
> standard, but it app
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:05:21AM -0500, Jason Bailey wrote:
> I don't think you can really compare Haskell with the C's. C/C++, for
> the time being, is the basis of most low level api's. They don't really
> need a large standard library because their packages are available
> everywhere and a
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:45:53PM +, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Marc Charpentier wrote:
> >But Erik Meijer wrote (http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/emeijer/):
> >
> >" Pure functional programmers, your days are numbered. The grim reaper
> >is knocking at your door."
> >
> >:-/
Erik Meijer wrote also th
Java had a relatively slow uptake in enterprise and a meteoric rise in
universities - that is really starting to pay off now as graduates look
to java as a solution first (the first graduates brought up on java are
just getting into decision making roles).
Universities will accept Haskell for "
When I compile it I get three files, an actual runnable binary (at only
5M in size), a .o file and a .hi file. I'm sure these additional files
are usefull in someway and as soon as I come across the right piece of
documentation everything should make sense. But as a person new to the
language I'm
Hi All,
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:05:21 -0500, Jason Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jules Bean wrote:
I don't think you can really compare Haskell with the C's. C/C++, for
the time being, is the basis of most low level api's. They don't really
need a large standard library because their packages
Some of the features they are adding to c# are pretty cool. Nothing you
can't
do in Haskell, but it does have the advantage of familiar syntax. On the
other hand
they say it is easier to teach functional programming to people who have
never programmed before.
I was of course thinking of how to p
Jason Bailey wrote:
> As well as a lack of decent online tutorials, examples, etc. If it
> wasn't for the book /Haskell: The Craft of Functional Programming/ I
> would be much farther back in my comprehension then I am now.
Speaking of books, are there any intermediate/advanced Haskell
bo
Jason Bailey wrote:
No offense but those are just catch phrases. They can support a
justification but won't work as a justification in its own right.
Here are some questions that I would expect to get from business.
Q:"What have I heard about this technology?"
A: Probably nothing. Haskell isn't v
At 10:54 03/12/04 +, Keean Schupke wrote:
Jason Bailey wrote:
I mean I think its a really cool idea, and I'm having fun learning it.
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a justification to introduce
this into our business environment.
How about increased productivity, and more stuff ri
I've been somewhat frustrated by most of the things mentioned here and
so don't need to mention them again. (Most recently, just to see I
comiled and linked a haskell "hello,world", came up with something
like an 8 mb binary under Windows and couldn't see from the GHC docs
how to link dynamicly.)
Keean Schupke wrote:
A question with regards to making Haskell easier to manage (like say
perl or python), does
Haskell have an equivalent of CPAN... if not would it be a good idea
to write one?
If haskell had a central code repository (like CPAN) then it would
make installing a library as
simp
Keean Schupke wrote:
Jason Bailey wrote:
I mean I think its a really cool idea, and I'm having fun learning
it. But I would be hard pressed to come up with a justification to
introduce this into our business environment.
How about increased productivity, and more stuff right first time...
Keean.
Jules Bean wrote:
The documentation is sparse and confusing,
Agreed. The hierarchical library documentation is poor in many places.
As well as a lack of decent online tutorials, examples, etc. If it
wasn't for the book Haskell: The Craft of Functional Programming
I would
Looks like your right, I thought cabal was just a library packaging
standard, but it appears to
have an on-line archive... I guess the real question is, can i do:
cabal install
(or equivalent) and have all dependancies and the package I want
downloaded, configured, compiled, and installed on my
A question with regards to making Haskell easier to manage (like say
perl or python), does
Haskell have an equivalent of CPAN... if not would it be a good idea to
write one?
If haskell had a central code repository (like CPAN) then it would make
installing a library as
simple as running a singl
Jason Bailey wrote:
I mean I think its a really cool idea, and I'm having fun learning it.
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a justification to
introduce this into our business environment.
How about increased productivity, and more stuff right first time...
Keean.
On 3 Dec 2004, at 03:48, Jason Bailey wrote:
As one of the "rank and file" and fairly new to Haskell (less then a
month) I can tell you that there is a growing awareness of functional
programming and that it offers different paradigms to work with.
That's good to hear.
The documentation is sparse
I think you may be asking the wrong question.
As one of the "rank and file" and fairly new to Haskell (less then a
month) I can tell you that there is a growing awareness of functional
programming and that it offers different paradigms to work with.
I think the more important question is - "is H
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:57:27PM +0100, Shae Matijs Erisson wrote:
> The #haskell irc channel on irc.freenode.net is composed of many different
> flavors of programmer, from self-educated 16 year olds on up to post doctoral
> students studying functional programming.
> I'm a self-educated, self-e
GoldPython <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone tried presenting the language to the average rank and file
> programming community? If so, was it successful? If not, is there
> interest in doing so?
The #haskell irc channel on irc.freenode.net is composed of many different
flavors of program
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, GoldPython wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> I'm new to the Cafe, but not to Haskell (experimented with it on and
> off on a small scale over the last 5 or 6 years and enjoy the language
> quite a lot) and had more of a political question and wanted to see
> what people thought:
>
> Ha
Hi, all,
I'm new to the Cafe, but not to Haskell (experimented with it on and
off on a small scale over the last 5 or 6 years and enjoy the language
quite a lot) and had more of a political question and wanted to see
what people thought:
Has anyone tried presenting the language to the average ran
42 matches
Mail list logo
