51–53 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah! Synthesis is quite excellent. I've been interested in exploring using the FORTH model of easily-accessible-runtime-compiler in that sort of context...
However it seems dead. Anything new on Synthesis (and related ideas) in the last two decades?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I like Haskell's syntax better. But their syntaxen are nearly isomorphic for the most common stuff.
I'm finding OCaml's approach to be a bit more practical even if it isn't as pure as Haskell. Once in a while it's nice to be able to drop into an imperative style or even do some OO and OCaml lets you do all of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quality of the individual programs plays a large role. E.g. GHC (Haskell) has made huge strides in the past thanks to better libraries and implementations for the benchmark, despite nearly the same compiler. On a side note, a lot of the benchmarks had to be reformulated after lazy languages got fast. As far as I know, a benchmark at this side prescribes which algorithm you should use. Haskell (and e.g. Clean) jus…
> despite nearly the same compiler As you don't say how far "in the past" maybe that's nonsense or maybe that's true. > a lot of the benchmarks had to be reformulated after lazy languages got fast That's nonsense. Programs for one benchmark - binary-trees - had to be rewritten because "this is an adaptation of a benchmark for testing GC so we are interested in the whole tree being allocated before any nodes are GC'd"…