replacing guile with haskell?

John Meacham john at
Sat Oct 18 14:36:53 EDT 2003

On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 07:06:20AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> Yeah, that's essentially what I've got.  The only difference being that in
> my case "usually" user's shouldn't need to know that they are using a
> programming language.  Which is why using a declarative language sounds so
> nice.  I'll have to explain to users the difference between "actions" and
> "definitions", but that shouldn't be too hard as long as users don't
> realize they are programming!  :)  Declarative statements are how you'd
> normally expect an input file to behave (i.e. the order doesn't matter).

hear, hear. I also love declarative langugages for embedded
applications. A lot of time they just 'make more sense'. something which
might be interesting is Q, a sort of dynamically typed haskell based on
term rewriting with a portable embeddable implementation written in C

not to distract people from writting an embedded haskell :). if you are
writing your main application in haskell, adding an interpreting stage
to 'hatchet' or pulling the interpreter out of nhc should not be to
unreasonable. perhaps there should be a standard haskell interpreter
written in haskell in the libraries.

John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - john at

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list