or, how about CAL?
the amount of java libs to be tapped is amazing. My experience with
haskell libs has been mixed bag.
In the case of clojure, XML parsing, database connection,
kicking up a web server, natural language parsing.
"There is a Jar for that"
OTH, there are situations where we can't use JVM. This is
where we fall back to other languages/runtime. Sometimes
it's haskell, sometimes it's c/c++, sometimes it's objective-c.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--
Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum.
I think stateful things are too hard to do in Haskell, and they are an
important part of most real-world programs. Clojure's blend of
persistent data structures with a variety of reference-type objects
that can contain them feels much more pragmatic to me. Also, I'm just
happier working in a dynamically-typed language.
As a side note, years ago, I wanted to write something in Haskell that
worked like Clojure's memoize (which is implemented in a half-dozen or
so lines of code in Clojure's core), and asked about it on the Haskell
mailing list. I was pointed to a PhD dissertation on the topic of how
to write memoize in Haskell. All I could think was, "Do I really want
to be using a language where memoize is a PhD-level topic?"
The JVM. So I can mix'n'match Clojure into applications that I already
build on the JVM with several other languages.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://getrailo.com/
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
Because I saw Haskell as a good language to shape my mind, and then I found Clojure a
2010/7/20 Jared <tri...@gmail.com>
- Chas
Clojure feels closer to Scheme to me, and I don't think it just all the
parenthesis. So the decision for me was between clojure and
(plt-)scheme. The access to java portability and functionality was very
important.
--
Pull me down under...
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or, how about CAL?
Mainly DSLs that do not fit in the Haskell type systems and type
checkers for them.
Also : www.cse.chalmers.se/~wouter/Publications/ThePowerOfPi.pdf
(Warning: advertisement)
Another thing is the fact that writing big pattern matching of a
closed type does not work for the kind of program I do.
(At some time, we developed a tool to assemble a big pattern matching
from fragments in different files.
It just feels better to organise your program by theme, rather than
by functions...
I really appreciate having protocols, multimethods and case/cond and
to be able to work at this 3 levels.
Of course, all that can be done in Haskell by tricking the type system.
(For example type classes + forall + GADTs and type families). But
you spend more time tricking the type system than coding.)
But I would really love static typing that is as convenient as dynamic
typing (see the paper above for details about why dependant types are
great).
(Warning: advertisement)
Nicolas.
I think stateful things are too hard to do in Haskell, and they are an
important part of most real-world programs. Clojure's blend of
persistent data structures with a variety of reference-type objects
that can contain them feels much more pragmatic to me. Also, I'm just
happier working in a dynamically-typed language.
As a side note, years ago, I wanted to write something in Haskell that
worked like Clojure's memoize (which is implemented in a half-dozen or
so lines of code in Clojure's core), and asked about it on the Haskell
mailing list. I was pointed to a PhD dissertation on the topic of how
to write memoize in Haskell. All I could think was, "Do I really want
to be using a language where memoize is a PhD-level topic?"
I'm really tickled by the reaction to this comment on places like
reddit. Especially how all the Haskell apologists are rushing to the
defense of their language even though it's obvious that no Haskell
programmer UNDERSTANDS the language, especially the type system.
Me: Because they are not data structures.
They are an abstraction that can represent computations. One kind of
computation are the non-deterministic ones.
They look like lists.
But parsing, continuations, states program are monads.
m a means a computation that returns something of type a.
That's actually a concept that has a meaning even in a dynamically
typed language.
And it can be useful in Clojure, too. You can put the do notation as a
macro and use this useful abstraction.
One particular monad is a list and another one (the free monad) is a
tree representing programs. But most monad are not data structures.
That's far more general than that.
Haskell is a great language and brings a lot of clever ideas.
it is somewhat back. apparently. kinda.
http://groups.google.com/group/cal_language/browse_thread/thread/183df7bf7366acb1