On pondělí 29 srpna 2005 8:57, Ketil Malde wrote:
It contains descriptions of lots of real-world problems and how
They are only implementing TRUTH and CWB, no?
Yes, and lots of real-world situations that they faced during the development. That's what I meant.
I would like to see more discussion of what is "impoverished" about the environments, and what they consider "mainstream programming languages". Certainly the authors could have discussed this in the main part of the paper?
Please read section 5 in the paper.
I'm not sure the authors are even aware or the existence of interactive environments (e.g. Hugs and GHCi are not mentioned, only Haskell *compilers*).
I am very sure they are aware of them. Interactive interpreters are simply not enough of a tool for commercial development - more sophisticated tools are necessary. In Haskell we don't even have basic things like code structure visualisation, efficient browsing and fully language-aware editor with typing support etc. This is one of the ways of distinguishing the mainstream languages. Mainstream means that enough people use them for someone to put in the effort to build the tools. vlcak