November 2000 - Haskell-Cafe

RE: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
by Doug Ransom 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

> -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin L. Russell [mailto:russell@brainlink.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 11:50 PM > To: Doug Ransom; haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org > Subject: Re: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future? > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:15:52 -0800 > Doug Ransom <Doug_Ransom(a)pml.com> wrote: > > > > [stuff deleted] > > > > A lot of the things Haskell excells at (IMO) inferior > > tools are being used > > in place. For example, microsoft has build good XSLT > > translators and two > > new compilers (C#, VB7) in the last couple years. > > Unfortunately, C#, not > > Haskell, will probably be "the" language for the next > > decade. [stuff deleted] > > Just out of curiosity: what makes you so sure about C#? C# > has some potential big problems, too: in particular, the > ability to declare a portion of the code "unsafe," which can > encourage unsafe programming among entrenched C/C++ programmers. Well, first of all, most C++ programmers really hate C++ and will be happy to stay in safe mode and move to C#. There were cheers at the Microsoft Profesional Developers Conference when MS announced garbage collection for the COM replacement and the safety available with C# and managed C++ code. C# is a huge improvement over C++. Why would a C++ programmer want to go into unsafe mode? I guess when they are writing interfaces to device drives, operating system calls, and legacy interfaces. > > I myself am in no big hurry to master C#. I'd rather use a > set of domain-specific languages with interlinked code, > rather than a single language that purports to be as > general-purpose as C# does. Well, I would prefer to master Haskell and use that as my general purpose language. Fat chance since the object models available in the microsoft common language runtime are designed for impertive programming. > > Benjamin L. Russell > russell(a)brainlink.com > "Furuike ya! Kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." --Matsuo Basho >

3 2

Type classes diagram?
by Kurt 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

Has anyone seen a downloadable diagram of the relationships between all of the Haskell type classes? If so, could you post a link? TIA, Kurt.

3 3

RE: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
by Doug Ransom 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

Development tools for OO now are as good as smalltalk-80. I expect the benefits of FP to be widely adopted in industry by 2020. XSLT is kind of cool and taking off. Not exactly functional but there is no destructive assignment. A lot of the things Haskell excells at (IMO) inferior tools are being used in place. For example, microsoft has build good XSLT translators and two new compilers (C#, VB7) in the last couple years. Unfortunately, C#, not Haskell, will probably be "the" language for the next decade. Fortunately, C++ will not be the language of the next decade. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Lescher [mailto:christian@lescher.de] > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:14 PM > To: haskell-cafe(a)haskell.org > Subject: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future? > > > In my opinion there are many more real world problems, that > can be most > efficiently solved with functional languages like Haskell, as > (software) > industry can think of at the moment; they only know their C/C++, Java, > etc. but can't even think of the power of functional programming or at > least don't take languages like Haskell for full. (Of corse, there are > exceptions to the rule, too.) > > What do you think: Will Haskell (the related compilers/tools) be > "commercialized" in the future? > > Christian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe(a)haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >

9 10

Re: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
by Ashley Yakeley 27 Nov '00

27 Nov '00

At 2000-11-27 19:52, Tyson Dowd wrote: >On 27-Nov-2000, Adrian Hey <ahey(a)iee.org> wrote: >> On Mon 27 Nov, Fergus Henderson wrote: >> > Do you think that Haskell would be better without `unsafePerformIO'? >> >> Well, a sceptic like me is bound to wonder why such a non-function is >> provided in a purely functional language. What really worries me is >> that the damage isn't localised. If you allow such things you can never be >> sure that any function really is a function, without careful scrutiny of all >> the code it's dependent on. > >This is an issue, but it arises in any "pure" language with a foreign >language interface. Not necessarily, the functions just need to be typed correctly. In the case of a non-safe or imperative function, that's going to be of the form "a -> IO b" (or "IO a -> IO b" if you prefer the more powerful arrow model). No safety needs to be sacrificed. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

2 1

unsubscribe haskell-cafe
by Wooseok Yang 25 Nov '00

25 Nov '00

unsubscribe haskell-cafe

1 0

Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
by Christian Lescher 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

In my opinion there are many more real world problems, that can be most efficiently solved with functional languages like Haskell, as (software) industry can think of at the moment; they only know their C/C++, Java, etc. but can't even think of the power of functional programming or at least don't take languages like Haskell for full. (Of corse, there are exceptions to the rule, too.) What do you think: Will Haskell (the related compilers/tools) be "commercialized" in the future? Christian

3 3

(no subject)
by Chris Angus 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

I was wondering if Has anybody had access to a Haskell -> Java compiler/translator. ----------------------------------------- Chris Angus Armature Enterprise House 1 Apex View Leeds LS11 9BH +44 113 2595253 cangus(a)armature.com

3 2

Re: Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
by Friedrich Dominicus 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

Christian Lescher <christian(a)lescher.de> writes: > In my opinion there are many more real world problems, that can be most > efficiently solved with functional languages like Haskell, as (software) > industry can think of at the moment; they only know their C/C++, Java, > etc. but can't even think of the power of functional programming or at > least don't take languages like Haskell for full. (Of corse, there are > exceptions to the rule, too.) > > What do you think: Will Haskell (the related compilers/tools) be > "commercialized" in the future? Let me counter with another question. Do you think people will pay for it and enough to keep the vendors going? Regards Friedrich

1 0

FP & Python
by Manuel M. T. Chakravarty 24 Nov '00

24 Nov '00

The following article featuring an interview with the authors of alternative Python implementations might be interesting to some of you, as it features the use of FP technology in the context of a popular language: http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/l-pyth7.html?open&l=666,t=g… Vyper might actually be of interest for Phil's page about real-world applications of FP. Cheers, Manuel

1 0

haskell editor..
by John Meacham 16 Nov '00

16 Nov '00

so while randomly surfing the realm of haskell space I came across the Alfa Proof assistant. (http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~hallgren/Alfa/) All I can say is WOW, this thing is fun to play with, (and to think I have been doing my proofs with pencil and paper all these years). The interactive editor in particular I found quite enjoyable to use, I was wondering if someone has ever made or considered making a similar editor for haskell programs themselves? On first thought it seems that such a thing should not be too difficult as the type system of haskell is based on the same theories and haskell programs are similar to declarative proofs. It seems like an editor of that sort coupled with a class browser would be a powerful authoring tool.. (and this coming from a vi user :) ) The other thing that Alfa made me want to try out was programming with Fudgets. however as far as I can tell Fudgets has bit-rotted away... at least I have been unable to find a version which compiles with my prefered setup (ghc 4.08.1)... I was wondering if there is anyone working on bringing Fudgets up to date? There must be some setup that can compile it as Alfa still appears to be actively developed, From a lookover of the sources probably all that would need to be done is to replace the Xlib layer with one based on FFI so as to be portable to all the modern platforms and bring the code up to haskell98 compliance... perhaps somebody has already done this but it is not well publicised or is there some other reason Fudgets has not been developed recently like the existence of an accepted better GUI API? just some random thoughts.... John -- -------------------------------------------------------------- John Meacham http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~john/ California Institute of Technology, Alum. john(a)foo.net --------------------------------------------------------------

2 1