"Lambda Dance", Haskell polemic, etc. on O'Reilly site

[S. Alexander Jacobson]

FYI, there are multiple python implementations out there.
See
http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/comp.lang.python/python_varieties.html

Of particular note here is Vyper implemented in OCAML, which adds tail
calls, list comprehensions, lexical scoping, full garbage collection, and
pattern matching to Python...

-Alex-

___________________________________________________________________
S. Alexander Jacobson                   Shop.Com
1-646-638-2300 voice                    The Easiest Way To Shop (sm)



On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Julian Seward (Intl Vendor) wrote:

>
> S. Alexander Jacobsen wrote:
>
> | Although I think Haskell is a beautiful language, Jelovic is right on
> his
> | core points, Haskell implementations don't meet the needs of
> | the working programmer.
> [...]
>
> I also largely agree with Jelovic, and I take what he says as
> constructive criticism.
>
> One observation at least as regards Perl and Python is that
> Haskell has a very much more academically-intense heritage,
> whereas Perl and (guessing here) Python were motivated more
> by end-user need.  GHC and Hugs suffer from tensions between
> being research vehicles and being practical implementations
> suitable for end-users.  I'd guess that Perl and Python don't
> suffer from such tensions, so their implementors can concentrate
> more directly on providing excellent implementations suitable
> for widespread use.
>
> I say nothing about Ruby because I know nothing about it.
>
> A second observation is that Perl and Python are both single
> -implementation languages, which makes it easier to have a
> coherent set of libraries.  Haskell, by contrast, isn't
> -- there are at least 4 available implementations (hbc, hugs,
> nhc, ghc).  The core language (Haskell98) is supported by all
> of these, but there isn't a coherent story on the libraries.
> We are working on that.  This plurality of implementations has
> worked well for the diverse research interests centered around
> Haskell.  I think there is now a growing feeling that we need
> to standardise the libraries more and put more emphasis on
> end-user issues -- the kind of things Jelovic mentions --
> if Haskell is to have a long-term future.
>
> Here at GHC HQ we are trying hard to make GHC into a suitable
> vehicle for widespread use.  The upcoming GHC version 5 should
> go some way to addressing issues of installability, library
> coverage and speed of compilation.
>
> As Simon Marlow pointed out, if you feel motivated to help us
> work on the libraries, that would be excellent.
>
> I think it's worth clarifying a couple of potential misunderstandings
> with the original posting:
>
> -- The current version of Hugs is called hugs98 not because
>    the implementation was last revised in 1998 but because it
>    implements the language as standardised in 1998.  Hugs is
>    actively maintained.
>
> -- Hugs is not the only Haskell implementation.  Ours, GHC,
>    strives hard to provide a coherent, complete set of libraries
>    in the standard distribution.  NHC is also moving in that
>    direction.  We are not yet there, but are, at least, proceeding.
>
> J
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>