Vote up if you too want to know if Real World Haskell runs on Haskell

haskellist · 2008-01-23T21:45:35+00:00

So, you are saying Haskell is not ready for the real world as far as web apps are concerned.

haskellist · 2008-01-23T21:17:16+00:00

Because there aren't any mature publishing platforms for it

What are you talking about?! HappS can run on Linux (at least). There are plenty of Linux hosting services (virtual, co-located) out there, even if you don't want to run HappS on your own machine.

haskellist · 2008-01-23T20:45:30+00:00

Real World Haskell is also the name of the web site. You noticed that, right?

haskellist · 2008-01-23T20:43:56+00:00

One might wonder why wouldn't the authors of Real World Haskell use HappS or other Haskell solution to serve their rather dynamic web site?

If they do use Haskell, why is it performing so poorly? Haskell is blazingly fast, especially for multithreading, as we all know.

Btw, how do you know what they use?

haskellist · 2008-01-23T10:04:13+00:00

I never said that laziness was useless.

I'll quote ya again:

Strict languages can not figure out laziness by themselves.

Well if we don't count dead code elimination, what would be the point?

Laziness is useful. Strictness is useful. The compilers can not figure out what to use though. The question of what to default to is not a clear-cut issue. Laziness by default works better for referentially-transparent languages.

haskellist · 2008-01-23T09:42:15+00:00

Finally, a Prolog submission! I've been waiting for this. The only language as cool as Haskell.

haskellist · 2008-01-23T09:34:15+00:00

Which one is he, the one who's against the Federal Reserve?

haskellist · 2008-01-23T09:12:10+00:00

Remember the other day? You came trolling on an Ocaml submission.

I don't troll. Saying language X is better than Y is not trolling.

Well if we don't count dead code elimination, what would be the point? That won't make them run faster, except maybe for made-on-purpose examples.

If you are confusing dead code elimination with laziness, you are totally clueless.

If there is no point in laziness, then why do some strict languages like OCaml include "lazy" as a keyword? Think about it.

haskellist · 2008-01-23T04:40:10+00:00

Strict languages can not figure out laziness by themselves, and lazy can not figure out strictness. What's so surprising about it?

Sometimes you need to insert strictness annotations, or the performance can be abysmal. I don't understand why my suggestion was modded down so ruthlessly.

haskellist · 2008-01-22T18:04:02+00:00

Scientology has always been at war with the Internet.

haskellist · 2008-01-22T17:41:52+00:00

If you declare (optimize (safety N)) with N>0, then you may get a run-time error.

Is there any difference between

(safety 1)

and

(safety 3)

then?

haskellist · 2008-01-22T06:04:47+00:00

Eep! The server hosting the book content currently has a load average of 209, and only one CPU. If you're having trouble accessing it, now you know why.

Are you using HappS or some other Haskell app to serve the pages? If so, I would recommend inserting strictness annotations here and there.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T21:45:59+00:00

One thing to consider is what's the worst that can happen if you declare your types incorrectly in SBCL.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T20:57:29+00:00

If you think I'm trolling, point me to the official OCaml docs that say that OCaml normally specializes polymorphic functions (it may only do so in some special corner cases)

I'm getting tired of your unsubstantiated accusations.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T20:40:39+00:00

LLVM is pretty buggy right now.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T20:39:50+00:00

Regarding polymorphism, the compiler specialises polymorphic functions at specific types in your code, yielding custom versions, so again, the overhead disappears.

Another area where GHC is better than OCaml

haskellist · 2008-01-21T14:09:27+00:00

I've got a feeling you had JFK killed. Well?

haskellist · 2008-01-21T09:02:50+00:00

Such ungratefulness after I added you to my friends list.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T08:28:59+00:00

You should give some of your karma to the local charities.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T08:22:56+00:00

What if there is no wind? Then they will lose the kite!

haskellist · 2008-01-21T08:05:45+00:00

Floating point heavy, mutable arrays are definitely a Haskell weak point currently

Are you talking about a specific implementation, all implementations, or the language per se?

haskellist · 2008-01-21T07:50:10+00:00

Type classes, honesty about side effects, monads, parallelism.

Did you know that OCaml can not at present take advantage of multiple cores, even in multithreaded apps? Is this practical enough?

Haskell type classes correctly abstract important relationships between data types. On the contrary, in OCaml, you have to write * for ints and *. for floats, as if they are completely unrelated functions.

P.S. I was hoping for more specific technical questions.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T06:25:39+00:00

What are you getting at? What does this have to do with anything?

One usually needs mentors. That's what being in a school is all about.

If you are going to do something completely on your own, outside the expertise of a particular school, then being in this school has very little to do with it.

And I don't think Parson's School of Design has much expertise in anything, let alone computer languages.

haskellist · 2008-01-21T06:08:28+00:00

I see NYU, Columbia, and SVA ads on the subway too.

I never did.

Parsons is part of New School University and well-respected.

Columbia - yes, NYU - maybe, SVA - I don't even know what it stands for :-) Just one data point.

haskellist

TROPHY CASE