ashley at semantic.org
Tue Jun 1 05:31:48 EDT 2004
In article <1085634303.3012.107.camel at JustTesting.cse.unsw.edu.au>,
Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:07, John Sharley wrote:
> > I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
> > (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
> > <quote>
> > Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
> > niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
> > into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
> > </quote>
> > Are the Microsoft Research people working on GHC or anyone else on this list
> > also of this opinion? If so, why?
> This is a clear case of FUD:
I agree. It's been changed now, however:
"Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist
with language interoperability between lazy and strict
Given your work on FFI, would you care to comment? I wonder if F# really
is as obviously preferable to a "Haskell#" as they claim?
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users