Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.scheme
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Scheme as a virtual machine?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Ertugrul Söylemez  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2010, 11:26 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme, comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.python, comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.haskell
From: Ertugrul Söylemez <e...@ertes.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:26:50 +0200
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2010 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez <e...@ertes.de> wrote:
> > What exactly is "friggin' huge" and "complex" about Haskell, and
> > what's this stuff about a "very own monolithic gcc"?  Haskell isn't
> > a lot more complex than Scheme.  In fact, Python is much more
> > complex.  Reduced to bare metal (i.e. leaving out syntactic sugar)
> > Haskell is one of the simplest languages.

> yeah, like scheme, it's essentially evaluation of lambda expressions.
> Unlike scheme, it's got a huge plethora of syntatic sugar as big and
> complex as a full numeric tower.  Such is the fear to avoid
> parentheses at all costs that they allowed lots of perlisms into the
> language ($ . `` >>= etc) plus python's significant whitespace.  So,
> in practice, even though at the core it's as simple as scheme's core,
> at practice it's so mindnumbing complex that only one implementation
> is worth of note.

That's nonsense.  There is only little syntactic sugar in Haskell.  And
all of them make your life considerably easier.  You get multiple
function clauses instead of an explicit 'case', which makes your
functions much more readable.  You get 'do'-notation for monads, which
makes (many) monadic computations much easier to read.  And you get
support for infix functions with a very clean syntax.  That's about all
the syntactic features you use in general.

BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '>>='), which are not syntactic
sugar at all.  They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
to be infix.  The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
"perlisms" proves that you have no idea about the language, so stop
crying.  Also Python-style significant whitespace is strictly optional.
It's nice though.  After all most Haskell programmers prefer it.

Further Scheme lacks these:
* A powerful type system,
* lazy evaluation,
* non-strict semantics,
* easy, straightforward to use concurrency,
* easy, straightforward to use parallelism and
* much more.

I'm not saying Scheme is a bad language (I recommend it to beginners),
but it doesn't beat Haskell in any way, at least for me, and in contrast
to you I /can/ make a comparison, because I have used both productively.

> And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a very
> irregular syntax...

What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
Haskell compiler called 'gcc'.  That's the GNU C compiler.  There is the
Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only one.  It's
just the one most people use, and there is such a compiler for all
languages.  Many Schemers use Racket, for example.

You never used Haskell seriously, so stop complaining.

Greets,
Ertugrul

--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://ertes.de/


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google