
The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop evolving in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why should it be Haskell? Haskell is a good language and it's time to start benefiting from the research that's already gone into it. That means some tradeoffs. Haskell is already behind state-of-the art in PL research and it seems unlikely to catch up (witness the slow evolution of Haskell' and the non-existent progress on Haskell2). Of course, I could be wrong. Regards, John A. De Goes N-BRAIN, Inc. The Evolution of Collaboration http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101 On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
"John A. De Goes"
wrote: Personally, I'd be happy to see that explosion of innovation in the library and tool spaces, even if it means the language itself stops evolving (for the most part). It will make it a lot easier do use Haskell commercially, and the innovators in the language space will find or invent a new target to keep themselves occupied.
And this is why we must avoid success: It would mean instant failure. There are already enough hype-languages around, there's not too much of a point to add one to them. Haskell won't stop evolving and (conservatively) keeping up with PL research until that's done, or Dependent Typing is well-understood, whatever comes first.
-- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe