Just to say, I agree with Brian totally! I've been (violently and
forcefully) exposed to MOF tools in the past, and at every turn my
thought was "the Haskell would be clearer, shorter and executable!"

This is true only for programming in the small, isn't it?
Furthermore, from my point of view Haskell code is very clear if we
talk about computations, in contrast the dependencies of data modelling
are harder to overview. Humans just like pictures :) Not everybody is
a hardcore Haskell hacker.

> Brian, but don't you think that you have to write a lot
> of boilerplate code in Haskell?

Can you give an example? Usually higher order functions, monads,
laziness etc can combine to make the boilerplate minimal, if not
invisible. This is exactly the kind of problem haskell-cafe will excel
at.

I do not mean the code per se. I was talking more about structure,
modules, comments, ... Haskell hackers have invented a lot of cool
stuff to make their life easier, however this stuff often is complicated
to understand :-) or not standard compliant.

If you can generate Java code from a model, why on earth would you
then want to generate Haskell code from it? I see know reason to use
the assembly language called Haskell vs the assembly language called
Java - since if you are compiling a model to anything, it is just
serving as an assembly language.