I think they made a mistake choosing a syntax so close to Haskell:
1. It's close enough to Haskell to attract Haskellers;
2. It's far enough away from Haskell to push Haskellers away;
3. It's not the language one would design if one were prioritizing easy interop with Java in a modern lazy, functional language.
If CAL were 100% Haskell 98 + extensions, it would be a success (Haskell + all Java libraries, trivial cross-platform library development, Haskell on Android & AppEngine, etc.). If it were nothing like Haskell, but had the features of Haskell plus strong, seamless, and easy Java interop, then it would be a success. Having neither, I'm not surprised it has no community and development has ceased.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-Brain, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
On Sep 28, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
That's a really shame. Any idea why?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM, John A. De Goes
<john@n-brain.net> wrote:
CAL is interesting, but unfortunately dead, and has no community.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-Brain, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
That's not really true. Just use CAL from the Open Quark framework... It's almost Haskell 98, with some extras, and compiles to fast JVM code.
They even seem to do all kinds of advanced optimizations - like converting tail calls to loops - to get good Java performance.
And they have a better record system, a graphical environment to learn it, etc.
So I think CAL should be in the list, and since it's basically Haskell...
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM, John A. De Goes
<john@n-brain.net> wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of your series is. No one who is using Java now commercially can move to Haskell because Haskell doesn't run on the JVM.
It makes sense to discuss Clojure, Groovy, JRuby, Scala, Fan, etc., as "next Java's", because they all run on the JVM and have seamless interop with Java. Haskell is not in this category. It's stuck in a different world, wholly inaccessible to the masses.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-Brain, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Curt Sampson wrote:
No, it's not quite what it sounds like. :-)
Stuart Halloway recently posted a series of blog entries entitled
"Java.next"[1], discussing the benefits of four other languages that
compile to JVM bytecode and interoperate with Java: Clojure, Groovy,
JRuby, and Scala. I thought I'd put my oar in and write a parallel
series comparing Haskell to these. I've finished a draft of the first
posting, started on the third, and made a couple of notes on the second
and fourth, and I thought I'd post the drafts[2] and solicit comments
here. If you have time to read and comment, I'd greatly appreciate the
help; feel free either to e-mail me privately or post here. Also feel
free to forward this to anybody else you feel might be interested in
commenting.
I'll probably be posting these about one per week, starting some time
next week.
[1]: http://blog.thinkrelevance.com/2008/9/24/java-next-overview
[2]: http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/drafts/2009/09/27.succ-java-summary.html
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@starling-software.com> +81 90 7737 2974
Functional programming in all senses of the word:
http://www.starling-software.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe