Which Language is more Expressive and Powerful: Haskell or Lisp?
Robert
Matthias Benkard
> Which one has more oomph?
Try them both, then decide. There's no single language that fits
everyone's mind best.
~ Matthias
Lars Rune Nøstdal
> Which one has more oomph?
Maybe you can use Lisp and have both Lisp and Haskell via Qi:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
Brian Adkins
> Which one has more oomph?
What problem are you trying to solve with a programming language?
Slobodan Blazeski
> Which one has more oomph?
Which one is faster Porche 911 Carrera / Landrover Defender / Kenworth
T2000 ?
Porche?
Try Camel Trophy
Landrover?
Try putting at it 20t of load
Kenworth?
How about a formula 1 race track.
Lisp has an "potential" to incorporate techniques coming from Haskell
and still be Lisp.
In Haskell you have to change the Haskell itself .
But does techniques you need are implemented in lisp , and how well
are implemented that's another question.
So potentially lisp is at the top of the power curve, as long as I
know,but practically even lesser langauges
with betetr library ecosystsems could beath both Lisp and Haskell if
the domain is the right one.
So your question doesn't make much sense, unless you tell us what you
plan to use it for.
Slobodan
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> Which one has more oomph?
Neither, and neither Arc. The language that has more oomph, is...
MaxPower!
This will be the thousand-year programming language.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
gavino
wrote:
sounds like a viagra alternative
Ken Tilton
Robert wrote:
> Which one has more oomph?
Common Lisp.
kenny
ps. What is Haskill? k
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Peter Christensen
It was the name Homer Simpson gave himself one of the times he changed
his identities. He got it off of a hair dryer.
Kaz Kylheku
The problem of generating the most replies to a single Usenet posting.
Vetle Roeim
> Which one has more oomph?
Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
--
It's not a bug, it's the future.
Ken Tilton
Vetle Roeim wrote:
> Robert <irish...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Which one has more oomph?
>
>
> Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
>
:)
kenny
Jon Harrop
> Robert <irish...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Which one has more oomph?
>
> Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
Yes, of course it can.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop
> Which one has more oomph?
They both have features that the other lacks.
tim
> Vetle Roeim wrote:
>> Robert <irish...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Which one has more oomph?
>>
>> Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
>
> Yes, of course it can.
>
Have a look at this before coming to a final conclusion about this point:
http://clemens.endorphin.org/liskell
One of the motivations for Liskell was that the macro facility in Haskell
is hard to use and thus not much used.
Tim
Ken Tilton
tim wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:25:14 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote:
>
>
>>Vetle Roeim wrote:
>>
>>>Robert <irish...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which one has more oomph?
>>>
>>>Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
>>
>>Yes, of course it can.
>>
>
>
> Have a look at this before coming to a final conclusion about this point:
>
> http://clemens.endorphin.org/liskell
>
Seeing "clemens" along with the name of a sometimes articially-augmented
hormone in that URL had me primed for a really good geek joke. :(
Anyway, he offers a nice paradigm of the Lisp noob:
Step 1: Disover Lisp exists.
Step 2: Read "On Lisp"
Step 3: Write your own Lisp.
I wonder when he'll start on his own dataflow hack?
Slobodan Blazeski
> Robert <irishhac...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Which one has more oomph?
>
> Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
You forgoth gracefully. :)
Difference in manipulation of code as data in lisp compared with other
languages is like making love and rape.
cheers
Slobodan
Jon Harrop
Sure, manipulating Haskell code from any language will be difficult but
Vetle only said "code" and did not specify what language it was written in.
I assume he meant arbitrary code, in which case Haskell is as well placed
as the next language (including Lisp).
Christophe
> tim wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:25:14 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote:
> >> Vetle Roeim wrote:
>
> >>>> Which one has more oomph?
>
> >>> Can Haskell manipulate code as data?
>
> >> Yes, of course it can.
>
> > Have a look at this before coming to a final conclusion about this point:
>
> >http://clemens.endorphin.org/liskell
>
> > One of the motivations for Liskell was that the macro facility in Haskell
> > is hard to use and thus not much used.
>
> Sure, manipulating Haskell code from any language will be difficult but
> Vetle only said "code" and did not specify what language it was written in.
> I assume he meant arbitrary code, in which case Haskell is as well placed
> as the next language (including Lisp).
>
> --
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Hi all,
In my point of view, it's "relatively easy" to create a good Haskell
with Lisp with good performances, reverse is not true.
It's not a comparison, but I think lisp is more versatile.
Best Regards,
Christophe
Jon Harrop
> Hi all,
>
> In my point of view, it's "relatively easy" to create a good Haskell
> with Lisp with good performances, reverse is not true.
Have you written a Haskell implementation in Lisp?
Aatu Koskensilta
> In my point of view, it's "relatively easy" to create a good Haskell
> with Lisp with good performances, reverse is not true.
This is a staggeringly implausible claim unless "relatively easy" is
taken in a very unusual meaning.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Christophe
> On 2008-03-10, in comp.lang.lisp, Christophe wrote:
>
> > In my point of view, it's "relatively easy" to create a good Haskell
> > with Lisp with good performances, reverse is not true.
>
> This is a staggeringly implausible claim unless "relatively easy" is
> taken in a very unusual meaning.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
I suppose most of Haskell implementations are written in C or C++ ?...
We know that Lispworks or Allegro are able to smatch C/C++ in terms of
execution speed.
So, with Lisp you have power and speed, with Haskell you have just the
power, same as Python or Rebol.
Rebol is certainly the most Expressive language. But it's slow.
Best Regards
Christophe
Aatu Koskensilta
> I suppose most of Haskell implementations are written in C or C++ ?...
Of the two main implementations, GHC is written in Haskell and Hugs in
C.
> We know that Lispworks or Allegro are able to smatch C/C++ in terms of
> execution speed.
The relevance of this observation quite escapes me. Let's suppose
Lispworks and Allegro are consistently faster than C/C++. How does it
follow that "it's 'relatively easy' to create a good Haskell with Lisp
with good performances, reverse is not true"?
> So, with Lisp you have power and speed, with Haskell you have just the
> power, same as Python or Rebol.
Haskell can be quite competitive performance-wise. Probably the most
problematic aspect is that with lazy-evaluation it is sometimes
difficult to foresee potential performance pitfalls or know what to
optimise e.g. by making this or that piece of code strict.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
Marco Antoniotti
I may be mistaken, but AFAIK the original Haskell was written in
CMUCL.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti
jim burton
Yale Haskell, which I suppose you mean, was very early 90s, pre-
Haskell98. You'd have an awful lot more work to do if you wanted to
make something which compared with a modern implementation. There are
a lot of extensions which have become part of the de facto standard
(that will presumably find their way into the next real standard).
BTW, I don't know anything about Yale Haskell's performance -- do you?
I'm not saying you couldn't implement Haskell in Lisp and achieve good
performance, but if you claim that this is "relatively easy," I'll
believe it when I see it. It would be great publicity for the lisp
community, mind you.
> Cheers
> --
> Marco Antoniotti
jim burton
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:48:40 -0800, Robert wrote:
>
> > Which one has more oomph?
>
> Maybe you can use Lisp and have both Lisp and Haskell via Qi:
> http://www.lambdassociates.org/
>
They're not the same thing. You'd be better off saying Qi has more
oomph than either, if that's what you think.
> --
> Lars Rune Nøstdal
Marco Antoniotti
In principle you can. As you could write a C++ compiler (or a Python
interpreter) in Common Lisp. There is no doubt about it. As to what
would be the nature of such implementation, there is plenty room for
debate.
In any case the original Haskell (Yale Haskell) was written in CMUCL
and, yes, it was the early 90s. I remember dropping in the CMUCL
debugger when a Haskell error happened. I do not have figures about
the performance of Haskell on CMUCL. But the fact is that such early
implementation was done on Lisp.
Just to set the record straight.
Cheers
--
Marco
David Golden
> In any case the original Haskell (Yale Haskell) was written in CMUCL
> and, yes, it was the early 90s. I remember dropping in the CMUCL
> debugger when a Haskell error happened.
FWIW it still runs today with some coaxing -
http://reddit.com/info/6al45/comments/c03byhx
Marco Antoniotti
Cool! Thanks.
--
Marco