On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 07:06:20AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
Yeah, that's essentially what I've got. The only difference being that in my case "usually" user's shouldn't need to know that they are using a programming language. Which is why using a declarative language sounds so nice. I'll have to explain to users the difference between "actions" and "definitions", but that shouldn't be too hard as long as users don't realize they are programming! :) Declarative statements are how you'd normally expect an input file to behave (i.e. the order doesn't matter).
hear, hear. I also love declarative langugages for embedded applications. A lot of time they just 'make more sense'. something which might be interesting is Q, a sort of dynamically typed haskell based on term rewriting with a portable embeddable implementation written in C http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/~ag/q/q.php not to distract people from writting an embedded haskell :). if you are writing your main application in haskell, adding an interpreting stage to 'hatchet' or pulling the interpreter out of nhc should not be to unreasonable. perhaps there should be a standard haskell interpreter written in haskell in the libraries. John -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - john@foo.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------