home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!ubrinf!sun1g!aspect
- From: aspect@sun1g.informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE
- Subject: Re: Is Miranda the one?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec11.171128.27098@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
- Sender: aspect@sun1g (ASpecT (=jvh+ric))
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sun1g
- Organization: Universitaet Bremen
- References: <dt4.723949863@persimmon> <Bz39Dy.HIC@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
- Distribution: comp
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:11:28 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <Bz39Dy.HIC@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, mikef@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Mike Fourman) writes:
- |> In article <dt4.723949863@persimmon>, dt4@persimmon.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
- |>
- |> > functional languages. I am wondering whether everyone out there
- |> > believers that Miranda is the BEST functional language?
- |>
- |> *********************
- |> No, ** ML is THE BEST. **
- |> *********************
- |>
- |> Really, the question is ambiguous. If you want to develop an application in
- |> a functional language, I believe ML provides the best available combination
- |> of rigorous language design and reliable, efficient compilers.
-
- Really! Come on guys! Be serious now! There are several other languages (systems)
- available being at least as good (rigorous,efficient,reliable,...) as this old
- (nasty ;-) grandpa ML .... even (or especially) in scotland ;-))))
-
- |>
- |> If you want to teach lazy evaluation (for example) ML might not be your first
- |> choice ;-)
- |>
- |> --
- |> Prof. Michael P. Fourman email mikef@dcs.ed.ac.uk
- |> Dept. of Computer Science 'PHONE (+44) (0)31-650 5198 (sec)
- |> JCMB, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, (+44) (0)31-650 5197
- |> Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland, UK FAX (+44) (0)31 667 7209
- |> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
- --
- o O O o | Joern von Holten
- \/|/\/ . | Uni Bremen
- //\ Let please |
-