Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Mon Jun 21 08:39:45 EDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 21:20, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> The other area (again MS specific) that F# has better interoperability,
> is .NET . F# (notice similarity to C#) is a funtional language within
> the .NET framework - hence supports the 'COM' style interface within
> the language primitives, just like C# does. This means coding a .NET
> component in F# is trivial - In haskell its still pretty hard-core
> (its hard even in C hence the prevelence of visual-toolkits on the MS
> platform - and also the eventual development of C#)
Well, .NET basically works nice with C# and any other language that you
cripple until you get C# with a different syntax. Even C++ doesn't
really work nicely on the CLR:
How can anybody expect Haskell to fit in under these circumstances?
Haskell simply is to powerful to fit into the CLR straight jacket.
> The only way the author of this comment can be persuaded to delete it
> I think is if Haskell were to have a neat .NET component interface, unfortunately
> Haskell's class system is not up to incorporating OO hierachies like .NET
> without some changes...
Not? How about
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users