Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is simplest extension language to implement?

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ? The problem is that haskell is overkill here and it requires esoteric extensions for some tasks (Rank2Types for reflection, for example). It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such languages must be as plain and regular, as possible. So, statically typed languages are out of consideration: they either have poor expressive power, or have expressive, but complex type system (as haskell), or relies on hacks within language for some tasks(typecasts and duck typing in c++). Scheme may be acceptable, and possibly EcmaScript. I do not know any other acceptable standartized language. Yet, Scheme has really ugly synthax and Ecma-262 standard is 250 pages long (Of course, it is not C++ with about 1000 pages in standart, but it still hurts to read 250 pages of techdocs in foreign language). On 11/02/2010 12:21 PM, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't understand. Why don't you use Haskell as the scripting language?
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Permjacov Evgeniy
wrote: Let us think, that we need some scripting language for our pure haskell project and configure-compile-run is not a way. In such a case a reasonably simple, yet standartized and wide known language should be implemented. What such language may be? R(4/5/6)RS ? EcmaScript ? Some other ? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and they love it. They especially like the strong typing, which finds their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script. The terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit. Regards, Malcolm

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Malcolm Wallace
ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
Do tell.
It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and they love it. They especially like the strong typing, which finds their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script. The terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit.
Regards, Malcolm _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On 4 Nov 2010, at 17:52, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Malcolm Wallace
wrote:
ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
Do tell.
Well, our solution is not entirely off-the-shelf, and possibly not to everyone's taste or ability, but we wrote our own Haskell "compiler", and a bunch of auto-generation tools (and FFI magic) that expose the underlying application's APIs (written in both Haskell and C++) as import-able modules into the scripting-Haskell layer. When I say "we", of course I mean Lennart, who may have some previous experience in writing Haskell compilers... But this one is based on many freely available packages like haskell- src-exts and uniplate, so lots of the hard work had already been done for us. And who knows, perhaps one day enough of the other parts of a basic compiler (name resolver, type checker, translator to core) might appear in Hackage to make it easy for anyone to write their own scripting engine. Regards, Malcolm

There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
Even the program which is to run the scripts is compiled with GHC?
I am interested to know how you do that.
2010/11/4 Malcolm Wallace
ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such
languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and they love it. They especially like the strong typing, which finds their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script. The terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit.
Regards, Malcolm
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

ehm. I missed something and ghc api is well documented and stable ?
There are other ways of adding Haskell as a scripting language - bundling ghc is not necessary.
It is inacceptable for scripting language, faced to no-programmers. Such languages must be as plain and regular, as possible.
We give Haskell as a embedded scripting language to non-programmers, and they love it. They especially like the strong typing, which finds their bugs before they ever get the chance to run their script. The terseness and lack of similarity to other programming languages is another benefit. I loved it as well and I was not programmer at that moment. However, I spent about 30-40 evenings to learn it well enough. I wish language,
I still have not found haskell interpreter, that is written in pure haskell and has good quality (i.e. stable, written in stable subset of ghc haskell, is small and so on). I know, that there is haskell-src(-ext), but interpreter (or at least compiler to ext-core) is needed. However, it may be a way... if no other will be found. that can be learned in 3 evenings and used well enough for 3 days of work... And many of it's fetures are not standardized yet.
participants (4)
-
Luke Palmer
-
Malcolm Wallace
-
Permjacov Evgeniy
-
Yves Parès