Scheme as a virtual machine?

[Ertugrul Söylemez]

"Jon Harrop" <usenet at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

> "Ertugrul Söylemez" <es at ertes.de> wrote in message
> news:20101014052650.510e8833 at tritium.streitmacht.eu...
>
> > That's nonsense.
>
> Actually namekuseijin is right. You really need to persevere and
> familiarize yourself with some of the other languages out
> there. Haskell is many things but simple is not one of them. If
> Haskell were half of the things you think it is, it would have more
> credible success stories.

Jon, I don't care about your opinion, because it's biased.  If you were
to advocate Haskell in any way, you would lose money.  So you must fight
it where possible.  This makes all your postings about Haskell (and many
other languages) meaningless and reading them a waste of time.

Haskell is a simple language with a comparably small specification.
It's not as simple as Common Lisp, but it's simple.  Note that simple
doesn't mean easy.  Haskell is certainly more difficult to learn than
other languages, which explains the low number of success stories.  On
the other hand, I'm doing rapid web development in it.

After all there aren't many CL success stories either, but Paul Graham's
story [1] speaks for itself.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html


Greets,
Ertugrul


-- 
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://ertes.de/