On Dec-01, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> C, for example, is weakly typed. That is, while you tell the system
> that a variable is one thing or another (an int, or a float), you're
> perfectly welcome to treat it as another type. This is *especially*
> true of values you get to via pointers. For examp
Timm Murray writes:
> I've always thought of Perl5 having two basic types: Scalar and List, with
> Hash and Array being subtypes of List. The reason is that arrays and hashes
> can be easily converted into each other, because of Perl5's list-flatening
> nature:
>
> @array = %hash;
> %hash = @a
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 10:04 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
<>
> And yeah, I'm throwing perl in here because it has what is reasonably
> considered a bizarre type system (it doesn't have integers or strings
> as types. It has "singular thing", "aggregate thing accessed via
> integer offset", and "a
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dunno if there will (though I'd love it) and it shouldn't be too hard.
Just delurking for a moment to mention that for various reasons I recently
wrote a (much of) Haskell --> lazy SK machine compiler. The SK machine is
reasonably simple, and I have vague
At 2:47 PM + 12/1/04, Richard Jolly wrote:
On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:33, Matt Fowles wrote:
Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell
Will there be haskell on parrot? How easy/hard would that be?
Dunno if there will (though I'd love it) and it shouldn't be too
hard. That'd be
At 4:53 PM +1000 12/1/04, Cameron Zemek wrote:
[Yeah, I snipped the first question. It's early, and I've not had
enough coffee :)]
Also could the Parrot VM be used effectively with strong typing languages.
Absolutely. At least some of the languages we're interested in,
specifically perl 5 and pe
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:59:48 +0100, Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:34:57AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> > Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that "oddball control flow constructs" like closures are
> proper to dynamic langua
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:34:57AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> > dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
>
> Dynamic languages have a few features in commo
Hey,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the implementation of IronPython [1] shows that it's quite
> possible to run some kind of Python on the CLR infrastructure.
Python is kind of easy to port over to CLR, because it has no
continuations - Clos
Some languages go even farther than those basic characteristics; Perl
5, for example, has four hooks to run code at odd times (as soon as
it's parsed, once compilation is complete, immediately after execution
starts, and right before the program closes). Perl and Python at
least have object format
Michael~
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:44:37 -0500, Michael Walter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell where
> > you can define a function
> >
> > len [] = 0
>
I've no idea, but the GHC team recently changed their backend from gcc
to c--, so maybe that has potential?
It would certainly be interesting to see how interopability is handled.
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:47:05 +, Richard Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:3
On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:33, Matt Fowles wrote:
Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell
Will there be haskell on parrot? How easy/hard would that be?
Just curious, Richard
Hey,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell where
> you can define a function
>
> len [] = 0
> len [ _ | A ] = 1 + len A
Actually, in Haskell this would be:
len [] = 0
len (_:a) = 1 + len a
>
Cameron~
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:53:32 +1000, Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
>
> Also could the Parrot VM be used effectively with strong typing
> languages. I
Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
Dynamic languages have a few features in common:
- Very weak typing with lots of automatic conversion.
- Oddball control f
16 matches
Mail list logo
