On 9 May 2008, at 6:59 am, Donnie Jones wrote:
I pasted a copy of the article below for those that cannot access
the site.Why Ocaml Sucks
Published by Brian at 6:49 pm under Functional Languages: Ocaml,
Haskell
. An even better idea [for 'printf'] might be some variant of
functional
Don Stewart dons at galois.com writes:
[interesting quote...]
Which I think really captures the joy of being able to write algebraic
and data structure transformations, via rewrite rules, without having to
extend the compiler -- all thanks to purity, laziness, and static
typing.
This makes me
Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Stewart dons at galois.com writes:
[Stuff where I totally agree]
Now, I don't know much about lisp, but aren't code transformations
like this the whole point of macros? What makes is difficult to do
the same thing in this context?
Proof of
Achim Schneider wrote:
Some years or decades ahead, perhaps Haskell will not be able to avoid
being successful anymore, and that is the time where you'll see things
that look like Java, feel like Java, work like Java, but still use a
Haskell RTS.
I'm told they're calling it F#...
[No, I
Chad Scherrer wrote:
PS - the link now gives a 500 server error - did our traffic overwhelm it? Is
the cafe the next slashdot? ;)
Hell, I can't even get a TCP SYN-ACK packet out of it... :-/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Hello,
I pasted a copy of the article below for those that cannot access the site.
I would be interested to see an article on Haskell in the same light as this
Ocaml article, aka a constructive criticism of Haskell.
Enjoy!
__
Donnie
### Begin Article ###
Why Ocaml
2008/5/8 Donnie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would be interested to see an article on Haskell in the same light as this
Ocaml article, aka a constructive criticism of Haskell.
http://www.drmaciver.com/2008/02/tell-us-why-your-language-sucks/
--
Darrin
