| Rainer Joswig 2007-07-30, 7:08 pm |
| In article <7x3az59ava.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <joswig@lisp.de> writes:
>
> Well, Haskell as we know it (with type classes, monads, etc.) is from
> later than the 1.0 report. Those were significant changes to the
> language, things that hadn't been done before, and that stuff happened
> in the 1990's. CL was sort of a repackaging of features from earlier
> Lisps. It was intended for practical development and porting of code
> from earlier systems, while Haskell was (and is) more of a PL research
> testbed. As such, by intention, CL did not attempt much that was
> really new, as opposed to unifying a bunch of divergent threads of
> development (Interlisp, Zetalisp, Scheme, etc).
That's not true. CL draws a lot from experience that
was gained throughout the 80s. For example CLOS got developed new
through the 80s.
> I'll defer to the
> Lispers whether CL really felt different than the older large Lisps.
> I can accept that putting CL together wouldn't have been possible
> before the 80's and therefore it's an 80's language but by that
> standard I couldn't push Haskell back to the 80's.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/p...mprehending.pdf
First sentence: 'Category theorists invented monads in the 1960's'.
Haskell is a language of the 60s?
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
|