 Future of Haskell discussion @ Haskell Workshop
started 9/12/2003; 7:47:32 AM - last post 9/26/2003; 1:21:40 PM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Future of Haskell discussion @ Haskell Workshop 
9/12/2003; 7:47:32 AM (reads: 19950, responses: 2)
|
|
| Future of Haskell discussion @ Haskell Workshop |
|
This year's Haskell Workshop, held in Uppsala as a part of PLI, traditionally
concluded with a discussion on the future of Haskell. This time an attempt
was made to structure the discussion a little bit by focusing on two specific
topics, and by having each topic being introduced by a short presentation.
The first topic was Haskell records, introduced by Simon Peyton Jones,
Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK. The second topic was GUI libraries for
Haskell, introduced by Axel Simon, the University of Kent, UK.
An interesting thread on the Haskell mailing list.
An example both of language design and of language community.
Posted to functional by Ehud Lamm on 9/12/03; 7:51:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Daniel Yokomiso - Re: Future of Haskell discussion @ Haskell Workshop
9/12/2003; 10:18:11 AM (reads: 474, responses: 0)
|
|
I've been following this thread and two things caught my attention: how the first proposal is similar to OCaml's object system (using record fields as OCaml methods); and how later Robert Ennals proposed a solution using the type-class system. Sometimes the answer is under your nose ;)
Just a thought, a syntax unifying records and type-classes could give an OO-feel to Haskell, similar to a statically-typed, referential transparent version of Self.
|
|
Patrick Logan - Re: Future of Haskell discussion @ Haskell Workshop
9/26/2003; 1:21:40 PM (reads: 225, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Just catching up on some reading, and getting back to this thread.
I think the discussion around records and objects in Haskell, OCaml, etc. illustrates how far these languages have to go to obtain a significantly greater base of programmers using them in a daily way.
Look at less formal languages, whether they have compile-time type checking or not, such as Java or Python. These languages of course provide objects and then get on with it. Programmers can use them fairly well with a test-driven practice.
I have to say from my viewpoint of using objects and records in Lisp and Smalltalk for more years than I can count on two hands, it is a bit discouraging to see the Haskell community debating how to type check relatively crude record mechanisms, however elegant the type theorems.
For GUIs on the other hand all I can say is I am amazed that in 2003 practically every language community is still struggling to come up with a satisfactory GUI foundation.
|
|
|
|