Andy Georges schrieb:
one particular thing that we still lack is something like book
"Haskell in
real world"
We need a 'Dive into Haskell' book.
That's for later.
Getting those little annoyances out of the way (like those described on
defmacro) is far more important.
What you need so that
Bulat Ziganshin schrieb:
Hello Joachim,
Monday, December 11, 2006, 12:01:42 PM, you wrote:
one particular thing that we still lack is something like book
"Haskell in real world"
We need a 'Dive into Haskell' book.
* It's easy to find the relevant information. [OPEN]
what i mean is to fix
Joachim Durchholz schrieb:
Bulat Ziganshin schrieb:
Hello Joachim,
Monday, December 11, 2006, 12:01:42 PM, you wrote:
one particular thing that we still lack is something like book
"Haskell in real world"
We need a 'Dive into Haskell' book.
* It's easy to find the relevant information. [O
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> These activities are among the major reasons why I'm finally prepared to
> get my feet wet with Haskell after years of interested watching.
> I'll probably fire off a set of newbie questions for my project, though
> it might still take a few days to get them organized wel
"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Talking to professional programmers, if I tell anyone I program in
> Haskell they nearly always say "oh, Pascal, that's cool".
You need to say askell...
> No one knows what functional programming is, Scheme/Lisp
> are the closest. Maybe we sh
> Haskell is just too similar to Pascal.
This makes me wonder how people pronounce "Pascal". It's probably because
I'm from Europe, but I put the stress on the second syllable. Pronouncing
it like "rascal" is, well, funny :-).
Greetings,
Arie
--
making someone not survive must surely count as
Claus Reinke schrieb:
but on the Pascal note: is there anything in Pascal that Haskell doesn't
provide, and improves on (nested procedures, procedure parameters,
distinguishing in and out parameters, types, ..)? it has been too long
since my Pascal days, I don't remember..
Nothing that I'm aw
Andreas Rossberg schrieb:
Claus Reinke wrote:
but on the Pascal note: is there anything in Pascal that Haskell doesn't
provide, and improves on (nested procedures, procedure parameters,
distinguishing in and out parameters, types, ..)?
Subrange types, maybe? But I'm sure Oleg will show us tha
Kirsten Chevalier schrieb:
I think that it would serve this
community well if somebody was able to achieve a better understanding
of the social reasons why some programming languages are adopted and
some aren't. I think all of us already know that the reason isn't
"because some are better than ot
Benjamin Franksen schrieb:
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
These activities are among the major reasons why I'm finally prepared to
get my feet wet with Haskell after years of interested watching.
I'll probably fire off a set of newbie questions for my project, though
it might still take a few days to
Tomasz Zielonka schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:17:08AM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
Haskell needs... bullet-proof compilers, all of this working right out
of the box. (I see that this all is being worked on.)
Come on, C++ got popular in spite of having NO bullet-proof, let alone
comple
Tomasz Zielonka schrieb:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
OK, there's the option of replacing working tools with hype.
It worked for C++, and it worked for Java.
Pity I don't have the slightest idea how to work up a hype for Haskell.
Who would want such a hype
Steve Downey schrieb:
The STL, however, brings a very applicative programming model into an
otherwise imperative language. And, it turns out that the template
language is a turing complete pure functional language, making
possible some very interesting type based metaprogramming.
AFAIK there's
John Meacham schrieb:
I think we need some sort of signal, to show that one means "I
understand why haskell doesn't allow this in general, but am interested
in a compiler specific trick or some theoretical background on the
issue" rather than "I am learning haskell and am somewhat confused due
to
Hello Joachim,
Monday, December 11, 2006, 12:01:42 PM, you wrote:
>>> one particular thing that we still lack is something like book
>>> "Haskell in real world"
>>
>> We need a 'Dive into Haskell' book.
> * It's easy to find the relevant information. [OPEN]
what i mean is to fix this problem.
On 12/12/06, Arie Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Haskell is just too similar to Pascal.
This makes me wonder how people pronounce "Pascal". It's probably because
I'm from Europe, but I put the stress on the second syllable. Pronouncing
it like "rascal" is, well, funny :-).
For whatever
Kirsten Chevalier wrote:
since it's not as if anyone programs in Pascal anymore.
Yet I'm sure most people who did a computer science degree some decades ago
remember the old joke about passing things by name or value for what it's
Wirth... :-)
Brian.
--
http://www.metamilk.com
__
On 12/12/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kirsten Chevalier wrote:
> since it's not as if anyone programs in Pascal anymore.
Yet I'm sure most people who did a computer science degree some decades ago
remember the old joke about passing things by name or value for what it's
Wirth... :
Hi,
On 13 Dec 2006, at 00:17, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
Kirsten Chevalier schrieb:
I think that it would serve this
community well if somebody was able to achieve a better understanding
of the social reasons why some programming languages are adopted and
some aren't. I think all of us already k
Hello Joachim,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 2:17:08 AM, you wrote:
> Actually, it's quite simple: following the ideology de jour and
> teaching-relevant support.
are you remember title of Wirth's book? "algorithms + data structures =
programs". i think that Haskell is ideal language for teachin
On 12/13/06, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Joachim,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 2:17:08 AM, you wrote:
> Actually, it's quite simple: following the ideology de jour and
> teaching-relevant support.
are you remember title of Wirth's book? "algorithms + data structures =
pro
Brian Hulley wrote:
> Yet I'm sure most people who did a computer science degree some decades ago
> remember the old joke about passing things by name or value for what it's
> Wirth... :-)
Wikipedia says:
“Whereas Europeans generally pronounce my name the right way ('Ni-klows Wirt'),
Americans
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:17:08AM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Haskell needs... bullet-proof compilers, all of this working right out
> of the box. (I see that this all is being worked on.)
Come on, C++ got popular in spite of having NO bullet-proof, let alone
complete compilers. Two years a
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> OK, there's the option of replacing working tools with hype.
> It worked for C++, and it worked for Java.
> Pity I don't have the slightest idea how to work up a hype for Haskell.
Who would want such a hype?
Why not simply start
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.12.2006, 21:56 +0100 schrieb Joachim Durchholz:
> OK, there's the option of replacing working tools with hype.
> It worked for C++, and it worked for Java.
> Pity I don't have the slightest idea how to work up a hype for Haskell.
IMHO, three is already a haskell hype, co
OK, there's the option of replacing working tools with hype.
It worked for C++, and it worked for Java.
Pity I don't have the slightest idea how to work up a hype for Haskell.
Who would want such a hype?
Why not simply start picking up fruits before the mainstream notices?
;-)
Actually
Hello Joachim,
Friday, December 15, 2006, 10:31:35 PM, you wrote:
> Because a mainstream language has more tools, more libraries, and an
> easier job search.
once i've got job offer just because i know Haskell. although the job was
nothing common with FP, he searched programmers on this maillist
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:40:10PM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> John Meacham schrieb:
> >I think we need some sort of signal, to show that one means "I
> >understand why haskell doesn't allow this in general, but am interested
> >in a compiler specific trick or some theoretical background on t
Hello Tomasz,
Thursday, December 14, 2006, 11:32:33 PM, you wrote:
> complete compilers. Two years ago the only full compiler for C++ was
> Comeau, probably unknown to most C++ programmers. I am not sure about
> today, but I wouldn't bet that things improved.
just because they don't know what si
29 matches
Mail list logo
