Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: What *not* to use Haskell for

Hello Jefferson, Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:12:40 PM, you wrote: may be i doesn't understand something but why c#, java, delphi, visual basic, perl, python, ruby or even ml better than c++? symbol names in C++ are easily predictable with wrapper using extern "C". i think that you just not tried to write warppers to code in other languages - the same problems are everywhere

Actually, one language you mention there *is* worse than the others for writing wrappable library code: C++. Admittedly, they've got a Python interface now via boost, but the main problem with writing wrappable C++ code is the template system and the inheritence systems getting in the way. Symbol names aren't predictable and not standardized, so it becomes impossible to write a portable system for finding and binding to functions in a library. I've not yet found a good way to do it in FFI code, and I would love to, as one library in particular I hold near and dear -- OpenSceneGraph -- is entirely written in C++.

-- Jeff

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

...

Hello Mauricio,

Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 2:26:21 PM, you wrote:

imho, Haskell isn't worse here than any other compiled language - C++, ML, Eiffel and beter tnan Java or C#.every language has its own object model and GC. the only ay is to provide C-typed interfaces between languages (or use COM, IDL and other API-describing languages)

...

I think Haskell is not nice to write general purpouse libraries that could be easily and completly wrapped by other languages. You can wrap gtk, sqlite3, gsl, opengl etc., but you can't write python bindings for Data.Graph.

...

But, then, if you claim there's nothing else Haskell can't do, what do you need those bindings for ? :)

...

Best, Mauricio

...

...

Hi everyone

So I should clarify I'm not a troll and do "see the Haskell light". But one thing I can never answer when preaching to others is "what does Haskell not do well?"

Usually I'll avoid then question and explain that it is a 'complete' language and we do have more than enough libraries to make it useful and productive. But I'd be keen to know if people have any anecdotes, ideally ones which can subsequently be twisted into an argument for Haskell ;)

Cheers,

Dave

...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com