Here are two things I found interesting: 1. The author comments that programs are not theorems. He is correct. They are, instead, proofs of theorems. The problem is, programmers almost never know what theorems their programs prove. 2. All of the criteria the authors gives for "good languages" apply, in spades, to Haskell, except the point on libraries. On that one, we're pedaling as fast as we can, but there aren't enough of us. Rex Page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:22:46 -0800 (PST) From: David Sankel <camio@yahoo.com> To: Haskell Mailing List <haskell@haskell.org> Subject: Interesting Read An interesting read: http://www.paulgraham.com/popular.html Any thoughts? ---- David J. Sankel _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell