Re: Haskell on ancient machines (Was: "Haskell is a scripting language inspired by Python.")
>> I haven't checked how much RAM nhc98 needs for bootstrapping
>> recently, but the
>> Makefile suggests 16Mb of heap + 2Mb of stack is more than
>> sufficient -
>> it could probably manage with less.
> If it was possible to save resources in these days - why isn't it
> possible today anymore?
> Too many Haskell extensions? Too much auxiliary code for interfacing
> with OS? Increased safety?
Simply that more people care about speed than about space.
On 5/11/2010, at 9:23 PM, Ketil Malde wrote:
>> Then there are algorithms that give
>> optimal results but blow up for anything much past 15 species,
> I.e, edit distance is O(n^k) for k sequences of length n.
I was actually referring to phylogeny reconstruction,
not edit distance.
>> Then we turn to human designs, and suddenly THERE IS NO TREE.
Read what Guy Steel sad about the Fortress language; he refers
to about a dozen languages that influenced Fortress.
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 12:12:51 pm Jeremy O'Donoghue wrote:
>> Best laugh I've had in ages. Personal favourites are:
> The Forth one got me. I also like:
> OCaml: "OCaml is an attempt to implement object-oriented syntax in Caml. It is
> related to SML."
> No mention of what Caml is, by the way. Hope you already know that. Maybe the
> SML entry will help?
> SML: "SML is the current descendant of the ML programming language. The most
> common current implementation is Moscow."
> Nope, it has no information on what ML is.
> Luke Palmer <[hidden email]> writes:
>> To us, scripting meant short, potent code that rolled off your
>> fingers and into the computers mind, compelling it to do your job with
>> reverence to the super power you truly are.
> Just when I thought, oh, there are two definitions for "scripting
> language", another one pops out. So scripting languages can be three
> 1) A language for controlling ('scripting') an application (e.g. TCL, VBA)
> 2) A language for controlling the running of various applications
> (e.g. shell scripts)
> 3) An agile language for making short programs (e.g. Perl)
> More definitions of scripting language:
> a) too slow to do real work
> b) Also they "don't scale well"
> I think Haskell can be fast enough to do 'real work', and although I
> haven't really written any large programs in Haskell, I don't see why it
> should scale worse than other languages.
here's another definition:
"a script is what you give the actors, but a program is what you give
-- Ada Lovelace according to Larry Wall
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 4/11/2010, at 9:08 PM, Stephen Tetley wrote:
> Did Haskell get significant whitespace from Python - doubtful as
> Python possibly wasn't visible enough at the time, but you never know.
Python did not originate indentation-based syntax.
Occam has it too.
I first came across the idea in a rather old book
which I *think* was by Reynolds.
I had absolutely nothing to do with it.
However, I must say that it is obvious to anybody properly schooled in philology and hermeneutics, to say nothing of theology and geometry, that both Python and Haskell stole their whitespace ideas from the medieval scribes who invented interword spaces. As is well known, the reason Roman computers never caught on is because they didn't use white space in their programming languages. For more info, see "Space Between Words; The origins of silent reading" by Paul Saenger, Stanford U Press, 1997. I'm not joking; anybody who enjoys thinking about computation will find it very enjoyable. It's one of those historical works that makes you realize that what you thought was trivial (e.g. whitespace) is actually of enormous import.
> Doesn't COBOL have significant layout anyway as an inspiration to
Yes and no. What it actually has relates strongly to punched cards
and is more like assemblers of the day.
Columns 1 to 6 were for the sequence number. Column 7 is called the indicator area. Columns 8 to 11 are "Area A". Certain structure keywords
and labels must go in that area.
Columns 12 to 72 are "Area B". Normal statements go in that
area. Indentation *within* area B has no significance whatever.
Columns 73 to 80 have a name (the Identification Field) but
And I thought I was the last mainframer alive! (I'm sure you'll agree calling COBOL an "inspiration" of Haskell might be a wee bit of a stretch.) Anyway, anybody who has ever wondered why 80 cols is a standard width now knows.
> Also they "don't
> scale well", which I guess means that they don't make it inconvenient
> to design badly.
And they don't communicate enough information about the preconditions/postconditions of their functions to easily allow large programs to remain correct? That is, the types expected and returned._______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re: [Haskell-cafe] "Haskell is a scripting language inspired by Python."
On 10/11/2010, at 12:50 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> i never programmed in COBOL, but afaik data structures usually was
> organized this way - together with level numbers at left. it was just
> easier to read it this way
The clue here is "level numbers".
In a declaration like
05 Uggle PIC X(5)
05 Zonko PIC 9(4) USAGE COMPUTATIONAL
05 Name PIC X(20)
05 Price PIC 9999V99 USAGE DISPLAY.
the indentation is solely for the benefit of people.
The compiler uses the *numbers* to figure out the
01 Thingy 03 Wotsit 05 Uggle PIC X(5) 05
Zonko PIC 9(4) USAGE COMPUTATIONAL 03 Snork
05 Name PIC X(20) 05 Price PIC 9999V99 USAGE DISPLAY.
would work every bit as well. The same is true of PL/I,
which also used level numbers for structuring.
On 04/11/2010 22:38, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> It happened at various universities around the world. Look at the
> original Haskell committee and you'll get a good idea where.
> The smallest Haskell I know of is Gofer/Hugs; it originally ran on a 640k PCs.
> Before that languages like SASL and KRC ran on PDP-11 with 64k memory.
> None of these had a compiler that was bootstrapped, but I had a simple
> functional language that compiled itself and ran in 64K.
> The smallest bootstrapped Haskell compiler is NHC which (I think) runs
> in a few MB.
I bootstrapped GHC from the intermediate C files on a 640K PC around
1993 or so. I don't remember exactly, but I think it might have worked,
for some small value of "work".
Re: "Haskell is a scripting language inspired by Python."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/11/10 11:12 , Simon Marlow wrote:
> I bootstrapped GHC from the intermediate C files on a 640K PC around 1993 or
> so. I don't remember exactly, but I think it might have worked, for some
> small value of "work".
If you used the right build environment, the compiler would have arranged
for overlays; the better ones even supported data overlays, but I imagine
that would have wreaked utter havoc with the runtime (its thunks would have
been wrapped in compiler-generated thunks that swapped the overlay space as
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] [hidden email] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [hidden email] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> On 04/11/2010 22:38, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>> The smallest Haskell I know of is Gofer/Hugs; it originally ran on a
>> 640k PCs.
>> Before that languages like SASL and KRC ran on PDP-11 with 64k memory.
>> None of these had a compiler that was bootstrapped, but I had a simple
>> functional language that compiled itself and ran in 64K.
>> The smallest bootstrapped Haskell compiler is NHC which (I think) runs
>> in a few MB.
> I bootstrapped GHC from the intermediate C files on a 640K PC around
> 1993 or so. I don't remember exactly, but I think it might have
> worked, for some small value of "work".
Wow! Your name must be Simon or... oh, wait...
And to think that in 1993 I was still playing with BASIC. :-(