Scheme as a virtual machine?

[Ertugrul Söylemez]

namekuseijin <namekuseijin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez <e... at ertes.de> wrote:
> > BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '>>='), which are not
> > syntactic sugar at all.  They are just normal functions, for which
> > it makes sense to be infix.  The fact that you sold them as
> > syntactic sugar or "perlisms" proves that you have no idea about the
> > language, so stop crying.  Also Python-style significant whitespace
> > is strictly optional.  It's nice though.  After all most Haskell
> > programmers prefer it.
>
> it still makes haskell code scattered with perlisms, be it syntax or
> function name... in practice, Haskell code is ridden with such
> perlisms and significant whitespace, and infix function application
> and more special cases.  All of these contribute to a harder to parse
> language [...]

So what?  The quality of a language isn't measured by the difficulty to
parse it.  Haskell has certainly more syntactic special cases than
Scheme, but I don't care, because they are /useful/.


> [...] and to less compilers for it.

That's an arbitrary and wrong statement.  The reason why there aren't
many Haskell compilers is that Haskell needs a good run-time system and
a lot of algorithms, which you wouldn't need in languages like Scheme
(including typed Scheme), which have a comparably simple type system.
Also you have to deal with laziness, and ideally you would want to write
a smart optimizer.  This is easier for other languages.

But what's the matter?  GHC is BSD-licensed.  Derive your project from
it, if you are, for some reason, not happy with it.


> > > And one as complex and scary beast as gcc... that's the cost of a
> > > very irregular syntax...
> >
> > What also proves that you have no idea is the fact that there is no
> > Haskell compiler called 'gcc'.  That's the GNU C compiler.
>
> ORLY?
>
> do you understand what a comparison is?

Sure, sure.  I'd probably say that, too, in your situation. ;)


> > Glasgow Haskell Compiler, GHC, and it's by far not the only
> > one.  It's just the one most people use, and there is such a
> > compiler for all languages.
>
> yeah, there's also some Yale Haskell compiler in some graveyard, last
> time I heard...

http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Implementations


Greets,
Ertugrul


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