> I think to remember that I already argued for a Haskell-like syntax at
> our meeting in Dagstuhl; I don't think that my arguments have been
> seriously considered so far.
>
> A last remark: I would even step back from some additional features,
> just to keep as close as possible to Haskell. As Simon said, the ideal
> solution would be a mere extension of Haskell without any change to
> the base language. Think about it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel
To continue this discussion, there is another (not new) point:
A language thrives with programs written in it. If it is
be possible to reuse or adapt Haskell programs, we would
be one step ahead! It's not easy, but it's not hard to be better
than Java vs. C++.
Christian
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christian Prehofer
Institut f"ur Informatik, SB3 prehofer_at_informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Arcisstr. 21, TU M"unchen phone: +49 89 289 2 2693
80290 M"unchen, Germany Fax: +49 89 289 2 8183
http://www4.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~prehofer
Received on Mi Dez 18 1996 - 15:48:59 CET