<Yurik>
Bigloo Scheme? nah. I like S-expressions, but not in all the code. And also it works on NT only w/ cygwin (if works at all, i haven't seen it yet)
<gene9>
=)))
<gene9>
no-no-no
<Yurik>
Haskell? Well, too pure functional, as for me ;)
<Yurik>
it looks more than a theoretical language than a practical one
<Yurik>
Python? Slow, only partially functional. No native code. And so on :-)
<gene9>
too pure, as said shapr =) too sysmes resources beast as said my friend about haskell
<Yurik>
C/C++? nah-nah-nah. You know why, I hope :)
<gene9>
err
<gene9>
haskel can't be compiled into native code???
<gene9>
wah
<Yurik>
Haskell can be compiled to native code
<gene9>
wait a minute...
<Yurik>
but all these monads, IOs makes me crazy a bit
* gene9
;=)
<Yurik>
OCaml is much more pretty, that is why I use it in E/AS
<gene9>
hmm and where is erlang? =)
<Yurik>
unfortunately, for the set of issues and problems, I deprecated Erlang code that was written and started writing in OCaml
<Yurik>
to gain the result
<Yurik>
erlang is a good thing but needs a lot improvements to be a really good for such kinda systems as E/AS
<gene9>
main = putStr "Hello\n"
<gene9>
ghc -S main.hs
<gene9>
main.S
<gene9>
is'nt it native code?
<Yurik>
<Yurik> Haskell can be compiled to native code
<Taaus>
Haskell can be compiled to native code...
<Taaus>
:)
<gene9>
and?
<Yurik>
I haven't said that Haskell could not be compiled to native code
<Taaus>
23:38 < Yurik> Haskell? Well, too pure functional, as for me ;)
<Yurik>
Taaus: this doesn't intersects with native code generation, eh?
<gene9>
wah, Yurik, sorry =)
<Yurik>
gene9: also you could realise the amount of libs for Haskell and OCaml
<Taaus>
Yurik: I just got the impression gene9 was confused as to why you didn't use Haskell...
<Yurik>
OCaml have more libraries, as I can see
<gene9>
on par
<gene9>
not
<gene9>
I don't think so
<gene9>
ocaml has a lot of wrapped c/c++ libraries
<Yurik>
also when I took a look at Haskell, I realized that it was fucking complex to make binary I/O for files. Not *very* much, of course, but...
<Yurik>
and of course, in general, Haskell looks very pretty, too. But...
* gene9
afk
<Yurik>
As for me (so, IMHO), OCaml looks like that it is more practical language
<gene9>
GREAT words from erlang master
<Yurik>
what do you mean? :-\
<gene9>
your expirience with distributed erang programming
<gene9>
and language at all
<Yurik>
well, i've a bit of it. how does this intersects with the above?
<gene9>
it is interesting for me why you are choosed ocaml after years of development with erlang
* gene9
smoking
<gene9>
;)
<Yurik>
btw, about all of the below. I've made selection (well, may be not the last one ;) ) alone, I've even did not discussed it with anybody, because it seems currently nobody is interested in E/AS technique.
<Yurik>
why?.. erlang was good for not very big systems w/ need of messaging. very good. but in case of system like E/AS...
<Yurik>
btw, the most bad thing in OCaml that it is not very mature. They could change it anytime. It has no stated standard (as Haskell has)
* gene9
thinks... wrong desiciong at erly state of design?
<Yurik>
yes, may be so
<Yurik>
and you should realise that I work w/ E/AS only in spare time...
<gene9>
I knew
<Yurik>
btw, do you really think Haskell will be better? just curious
<gene9>
no, but haskell && ocaml lacks set of nice erlang features, like distributed procedure calling/etc. why are you switched to ocaml?
* gene9
back
<Yurik>
there is Ensemble for ocaml
<gene9>
eer?? sy what?
<gene9>
say what?
<gene9>
wtf?
<Yurik>
Ensemble is even more powerful thing for messaging