On 4/13/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steffen Mazanek</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello everybody,<br><br>I would like to start a discussion on how to generate <br>best-practice Haskell code from a model, e.g. from<br>EMF.</blockquote><div><br><br>I started learning Haskell precisely to solve problems like this. But, once I got into it, I realized that Haskell is a much better modeling language than the modeling language I was using (MOF/UML, the predecessors to EMF). Furthermore, all the infrastructure built on top of that modeling language was very easy to replace with Haskell code. As a result, I gave up that effort.
You said "The benefits of the model+generate approach are well known,"
however I disagree. W3C DOM, MOF, UML, CORBA, and NetBeans 3.x-4.x are all obvious examples of the failure of the model+generate approach. If the modeling language is sufficiently powerful,
then it should be feasible to execute the models directly using a
<br><br>FWIW, I also think that data based languages like ERD, Relax NG, and XQuery/XPath/XML Schema are a much closer fit to Haskell than EMF. EMF is designed to be translated any object-oriented, class-based, (soley) subtype-polymorphic, single-dispatched, single-inheritance language;
i.e. Java. In fact, EMF is really a Java-optimized subset of what was supposed to become part of MOF 2.0.<br><br>- Brian<br><br></div></div>