2003-04-20.txt:01:42:06: <lament> Something like Haskell
2003-07-01.txt:11:16:20: <Taaus> This programming contest is being conducted by ICFP, which implies a desire to promote functional languages. However, rather than debate the definition of a "functional programming language," we will allow submitted programs to be written in any language whatsoever. Mixing languages is entirely acceptable; perhaps you will write in O'Caml and Haskell, with a Tcl script to do the gluing.
2004-01-26.txt:23:50:23: * Taaus-dvorak has moved on to Haskell these days.
2004-02-11.txt:00:15:20: <fizzie> oh, apparently I've written a semi-working (no 'g' or 'p') interpreter in 31 lines of haskell.
2004-04-18.txt:14:08:13: -!- shapr has quit ("fixing haskell-mode, brb").
2004-04-30.txt:07:47:16: <heatsink> I think it was something like, the text listed programming languages (C, Scheme, Haskell, Brainfudge[1])
2004-10-01.txt:04:05:41: <lament> shapr: it's not like Haskell is in any danger...
2004-10-01.txt:04:06:15: <shapr> wasn't talking about Haskell
2004-12-14.txt:06:52:46: <heatsink> why can't you shoot self in foot with python or haskell?
2004-12-25.txt:14:09:23: <fizzie> That's what I did with FORTRAN and Forth. And Haskell.
2005-06-02.txt:20:34:35: <jix> it's inspired by bf and haskell
2005-07-18.txt:18:02:20: <jix> it's my 2nd functional programming language (the first one was haskell and i used it only for a day)
2005-07-26.txt:07:13:31: <int-e> it's written in haskell, I compiled it using ghc, usage is bf2c < brainfuck-source > c-source. no options.
2005-08-04.txt:19:59:45: <lament> but i was thinking more like haskell-style
2005-08-05.txt:20:07:21: <int-e> hmm. maybe we should use \ for lambda like the Haskell folks.
2005-08-12.txt:22:34:09: <liebestraume> there's people who speak swedish in #haskell, you could ask them :)
2005-08-27.txt:20:21:05: <lament> what about unlambda (or haskell?) no instruction takes multiple operands :)
2005-09-09.txt:16:50:42: * grim_ prefers haskell
2005-09-09.txt:16:50:57: <jix> haskell is a nice language too
2005-09-09.txt:16:51:51: <nooga> haskell suxx
2005-09-09.txt:16:52:14: <jix> nooga: writing webframeworks in haskell sucks
2005-09-09.txt:16:52:20: <nooga> all i know about haskell is that it's an old, academic language ;p 
2005-09-09.txt:16:53:22: <jix> haskell has some pretty cool things.. like generating a list of ALL prime numbers and print the first 10
2005-09-09.txt:16:53:32: <jix> that was my first usefull haskell program
2005-09-09.txt:16:55:14: <jix> one of my first haskell programs: http://rafb.net/paste/results/TzQvS266.html
2005-09-24.txt:16:11:42: <jix> haskell is a funny language
2005-10-23.txt:21:01:23: <cpressey> right now i'm learning haskell.
2005-10-23.txt:21:01:30: <CXI> haskell is a fun language
2005-10-23.txt:21:05:08: <lament> haskell is amazing :)
2005-10-28.txt:04:02:21: <lament> at least, python is what i actually write stuff in. Haskell, Smalltalk or whatever is what i would use if i were smarter.
2005-10-28.txt:04:03:09: <duerig> *crosses himself* You shouldn't mention the term 'Haskell'. Just refer to it as the 'Scottish language'. Don't you know that it is evil? That it is cursed?!?!? :-)
2005-10-28.txt:04:04:19: <lament> anyway, in haskell anything can be an operator
2005-10-28.txt:04:06:31: <lament> yeah but ocaml is like haskell for dummies.
2005-10-28.txt:04:07:46: <duerig> I once took a class on 'practical functional programming'. We were allowed to choose our own language for the course. Only one person was brave enough to pick Haskell. He showed us his code once and all our eyes bugged out.
2005-10-28.txt:04:08:43: <Arrogant> Haskell is pretty esoteric <3
2005-10-28.txt:04:09:29: <Arrogant> Haskell is a great language though.
2005-10-28.txt:04:10:00: <lament> scheme and haskell are both conceptually pretty, but scheme is ugly in practice
2005-11-01.txt:03:35:57: <Arrogant> Actually, that article reminds me of Haskell.
2005-11-06.txt:16:14:56: <int-e> compare to Haskell:
2005-11-10.txt:22:26:11: <ihope> I just set up Haskell to do SKI-combinator calculus.
2005-11-11.txt:01:50:59: <ihope> Eh, infinite types in Haskell. Can it be done?
2005-11-12.txt:03:29:02: <ihope> I suddenly want to write a Haskell-to-Lazy K compiler.
2005-11-12.txt:03:30:52: <ihope> It'd probably be done in an imperative language until I get Haskell down.
2005-11-22.txt:00:20:28: <ihope> Well, I'm writing one in Haskell...
2005-11-22.txt:01:19:07: <ihope> Is there any Haskell builtin to test whether a list contains a specified value?
2005-11-23.txt:20:58:52: <ihope> Haskell?
2005-11-23.txt:21:00:29: <calamari> is haskell free software?  not seeing a debian package for it
2005-11-23.txt:21:07:00: <lindi-> calamari: apt-cache search haskell  finds 69 packages
2005-11-23.txt:21:07:44: <calamari> lindi-: weird.. must be Ubuntu then.. I have all sorts of haskell docs and things, but no haskell itself
2005-11-23.txt:21:07:59: <lindi-> haskell is a language
2005-11-23.txt:21:08:21: <GregorR> ghaskell? :P
2005-11-23.txt:21:08:34: <ihope> Haskell -> Lazy K?
2005-11-23.txt:21:08:35: <lindi-> ghc-cvs - GHC - the Glasgow Haskell Compilation system ?
2005-11-25.txt:20:21:59: <ihope> I'm slowly converting Haskell's getLine function into Lazy K.
2005-11-25.txt:22:23:42: <jix> haskell?
2005-11-25.txt:22:24:25: <jix> lazy evaluation is funny.. i wrote a haskell code to generate a list with ALL primes in it...
2005-11-25.txt:22:25:52: <jix> i told haskell to print the list AFTER generating them... you can't do that without lazy evaluation
2005-11-26.txt:00:46:58: <ihope> Ook! I just realized Haskell's imperative composition thingamajig is "tricky". Then again, maybe not.
2005-11-26.txt:00:58:13: <ihope> Yep. I think Haskell's "imperatives" aren't compatible with those of Lazy K.
2005-11-26.txt:15:58:49: <ihope> I decided once again that Haskell's IO types are not compatible with Lazy K programs.
2005-11-26.txt:18:50:43: <calamari> I translated that pi program.. it was originally Haskell, someone converted it to Ruby, then I converted it to Python and finally to Linguine
2005-11-27.txt:13:26:51: <jix> haskell too
2005-11-28.txt:15:38:30: <ihope> How about imperative, a la Haskell?
2005-11-28.txt:15:38:52: <Gs30ng> haskell is a stack-based imperative language
2005-11-28.txt:15:39:06: <jix> haskell isn't stack based
2005-11-28.txt:15:39:09: <jix> and haskell is functinal
2005-11-28.txt:15:39:23: <ihope> Haskell's do notation looks imperative :-)
2005-11-28.txt:15:39:38: <Gs30ng> a haskell code
2005-11-28.txt:15:41:21: <Gs30ng> is a reversed haskell code.
2005-11-28.txt:15:41:47: <jix> Gs30ng: haskell uses currifizing arguments that's why it looks like stack based but it isn't
2005-11-28.txt:15:43:58: <jix> the 2nd paragraph says it's different from functional languages like haskell
2005-11-28.txt:15:48:27: <jix> in functional programming there is no evaluation order.. (that's why haskell uses monads)
2005-11-28.txt:15:51:36: <Gs30ng> well, without any care of classes, monads, defining functions... state a language with reversed order of haskell
2005-11-28.txt:15:55:25: <ihope> But I'd like to make it so Lazy K's programs are compatible with Haskell's IO types.
2005-12-01.txt:00:24:53: <ihope> I'm having a simple problem with Haskell, and am off to deploy it at #haskell.
2005-12-08.txt:01:54:28: <ihope> I'm writing a Haskell program that will write a Foobar program that will output the 99 bottles of beer song.
2005-12-14.txt:11:18:54: <handongseong> taking some ideas from haskell (monad)
2005-12-17.txt:01:10:25: <ihope> I'm writing a Smurf interpreter in Haskell.
2005-12-20.txt:15:11:35: <Gs30ng> Haskell, Python, and Ruby was good ones for me
2005-12-20.txt:15:12:10: <nooga> hm, dont know Haskell
2005-12-20.txt:15:17:55: <Gs30ng> and Haskell is far away
2005-12-20.txt:15:18:01: <jix> haskell is cool ;)
2005-12-20.txt:15:28:00: <Gs30ng> haskell is more clean
2005-12-20.txt:15:36:48: <Gs30ng> haskell prefers the former(and you can use latter if you want)
2005-12-21.txt:19:13:14: <ihope> Stuff like that's why I like Haskell.
2005-12-22.txt:21:30:38: <ihope> Well, I calculated ack(4,2) in Haskell.
2005-12-22.txt:21:40:19: <ihope> This is sort of funny. Haskell is computing ack(4,2)... over and over again.
2006-01-04.txt:20:53:07: <ihope> I'm trying to write a Haskell interpreter for it. Treeky, it is.
2006-01-04.txt:22:58:42: <ihope> It seemed to take a few minutes. I love Haskell :-)
2006-01-11.txt:00:20:24: <SimonRC> How about Haskell?
2006-01-11.txt:00:21:19: <GregorR> Not hah to Haskell.
2006-01-11.txt:00:21:20: <GregorR> Haskell rocks.
2006-01-13.txt:23:28:42: <SimonRC> things like Scheme and Haskell are both of these.
2006-01-13.txt:23:28:58: <SimonRC> Being non-declarative is practiacally impossible in Haskell.
2006-01-13.txt:23:30:43: <fizzie> Oh, it's certainly _possible_ to write ugly non-declarative-like code in Haskell.
2006-01-13.txt:23:30:56: <SimonRC> *cough* http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/Data-IORef.html *cough*
2006-01-14.txt:18:42:35: <ihope> Like Haskell, sorta?
2006-01-14.txt:18:43:44: <SimonRC> so + doesn;t have a Haskell type, really
2006-01-15.txt:02:27:50: <SimonRC> Use Haskell!
2006-01-15.txt:02:37:15: <SimonRC> I will want currying, though, like Haskell has.
2006-01-16.txt:11:34:01: <SimonRC> Grrr, Haskell professor sent out patch that doesn't actually correct the probel *at* *all*.
2006-01-16.txt:19:52:52: <SimonRC> Hmm, Haskell is suprisingly powerful.
2006-01-16.txt:19:55:27: <GregorR> Nah, parsers are easier in Haskell.
2006-01-17.txt:00:48:51: <ihope> Even easier to port to Haskell... >:-)
2006-01-17.txt:00:49:05: <calamari> can haskell compile to c?
2006-01-17.txt:00:49:21: <GregorR> I think you can compile Haskell to ASM.
2006-01-17.txt:15:40:20: <ihope> Combine that with the variables of Haskell and the object-orientation of C, and you get a "great" lanugage.
2006-01-18.txt:02:41:46: <SimonRC> (patterns are analogous to Haskell patterns
2006-01-18.txt:02:45:41: <SimonRC> (anagram of Haskell, from which it steals some features, and in which it is written)
2006-01-18.txt:02:48:29: <SimonRC> the point of | is to do proper pattern-matching like Haskell has, but it assembles the terms at runtime!
2006-01-18.txt:02:57:54: <SimonRC> BTW, I have only been learning Haskell since Sep/Oct 2004, and the only interpreter experience I have had was reading McCarthy's original LISP EVAL (translated into Common LISP), and that didn't even have lexical scope, just dynamic scope!
2006-01-19.txt:00:07:31: <SimonRC> GregorR: learn Haskell.
2006-01-19.txt:00:07:48: <ihope> I lubs da Haskell.
2006-01-19.txt:00:13:02: <GregorR> I'm gonna download hentai instead of learning Haskell.
2006-01-19.txt:14:02:42: <SimonRC> any Haskell experts here?
2006-01-19.txt:14:03:17: <jix> i know a bit haskell
2006-01-19.txt:14:03:17: * SimonRC ponders joining #haskell
2006-01-19.txt:14:09:18: <jix> ask #haskell
2006-01-24.txt:01:07:37: <ihope> Haskell is looking very unfriendly to me right now.
2006-01-28.txt:13:22:40: <jix> maybe i'm going to write a rhotor => haskell translator.. that should be easier
2006-01-28.txt:13:22:56: <jix> but haskell has a different io system
2006-01-28.txt:13:29:39: <jix> is it possible to simulate that in haskell?
2006-01-28.txt:13:42:43: <fizzie> I don't really know enough about haskell to answer. Perhaps, but maybe not. Probably at least not without having the IO type everywhere.
2006-01-28.txt:14:38:06: <SimonRC> (from #haskell)
2006-01-28.txt:16:09:08: <SimonRC> either of you know much Haskell?
2006-01-28.txt:16:10:42: <SimonRC> It's just I've found this, which apppears to be a very good idea:   http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/CollectionClassFramework
2006-01-28.txt:17:18:22: <SimonRC> use Parsec (I assume you're using Haskell).
2006-01-28.txt:18:29:44: <ihope> Aah! It's exactly the same here as at #haskell!
2006-01-29.txt:11:30:57: <jix> but did you wrote them in.. HASKELL! 
2006-01-29.txt:11:31:13: <nooga> what? u r writing it in evul haskell?
2006-01-29.txt:11:31:31: <jix> because i wrote the interpreter in haskell
2006-01-29.txt:11:31:47: <jix> i did that in about 50loc haskell
2006-01-29.txt:11:31:57: <nooga> but why haskell
2006-01-29.txt:11:32:31: <jix> and haskell isn't that bad
2006-01-29.txt:11:33:26: <nooga> isn't ruby partially inspired by haskell?
2006-01-31.txt:11:30:51: <kipple> haven't tried. don't have haskell
2006-01-31.txt:11:31:38: <jix> and crosscompiling haskell... no
2006-01-31.txt:11:31:41: <kipple> well, I guess I should download haskell. 
2006-01-31.txt:11:31:52: <jix> download the glasgow haskell compiler (ghc)
2006-02-02.txt:13:31:30: <nooga> being 14 yr old and writing parsers in haskell -.-
2006-02-02.txt:13:57:05: <nooga> he's 14 and he's writing interpreters in haskell and he knows lambda calculus and everything!!!!!!
2006-02-02.txt:14:04:42: <nooga> where'd you learn haskell huh!?
2006-02-03.txt:14:48:35: <nooga> haskell seems very nice for writing interpreters
2006-02-03.txt:14:57:10: <nooga> sure, haskell is better for parsing than C+yacc as is 
2006-02-03.txt:15:54:51: * nooga loves ruby & haskell
2006-02-03.txt:16:51:30: <nooga> ah, i was typing "haskell" when windiw appeared
2006-02-04.txt:14:51:38: <nooga> i woder if apache has Haskell-mod
2006-02-09.txt:00:41:17: * ihope merges Python and Haskell into an esoteric language
2006-02-15.txt:13:11:15: <SimonRC> Currying is the major area of winnage of Haskell over LISP.
2006-02-15.txt:13:21:44: <SimonRC> also Unlambda ('" syntax), LISP (cona and nil), and Haskell (pattern-matching).
2006-02-18.txt:02:45:40: <graue> I think we should loosen up the ontopicness requirements of the esowiki and allow other languages to be mentioned, such as Lisp and Haskell
2006-02-18.txt:02:53:56: <GregorR> At one point I could write fairly decent Haskell.
2006-02-21.txt:15:24:42: <nooga> haskell?
2006-02-21.txt:15:27:06: <nooga> how to parse it in haskell to get it in a format siutable for your algo? ;p
2006-02-21.txt:18:26:49: <calamari> that's okay, I know nothing about haskell
2006-02-24.txt:21:42:26: <ihope> So Haskell is better than any other language, and Python is the best.
2006-02-24.txt:21:43:38: <int-e> haskell is good at stuff that python sucks at. and vice versa. both aren't good languages for number-crunching.
2006-02-25.txt:01:15:25: <ihope> Haskell.
2006-02-25.txt:01:16:22: <ihope> Haskell has stuff like "factorial x = product [1..x]".
2006-02-25.txt:14:42:33: <ihope> jix: give me a Haskell to BF and I'll be happy
2006-02-26.txt:15:08:41: <GregorR> Idonno, does rhotor not do fflush (in Haskell form X-P)?
2006-03-01.txt:19:35:43: <ihope> Haskell.
2006-03-04.txt:06:03:07: <kipple> I guess some of the newer langs like haskell or ruby would also be fine
2006-03-04.txt:06:03:18: <jix> yeah but haskell isn't good for imperative languages....
2006-03-04.txt:13:35:23: <jix> but i never changed the default for haskell D'OH
2006-03-04.txt:13:37:43: <SimonRC> (in Haskell mode)
2006-03-04.txt:13:37:50: <SimonRC> Probably because you aren't supposed to use tabs in Haskell.
2006-03-05.txt:18:33:42: <ihope> 8-(o_O:-) is legal Haskell code.
2006-03-08.txt:21:33:01: <SimonRC> Lazy streams: In C++ they are ugly.  In Scheme they are beautiful.  In Haskell they are invisible.
2006-03-08.txt:21:34:53: <fuse> so should i give haskell a spin?
2006-03-08.txt:21:34:57: <ihope> "How's the memory allocation in Haskell?" "Oh, it's invisible." "What about polymorphism?" "Invisible." "Function currying?" "Invisible..."
2006-03-08.txt:21:35:04: <ihope> Yes. Haskell's very nice.
2006-03-08.txt:21:35:54: * ihope thinks he took the "oh, Haskell's not right for everybody" too far
2006-03-08.txt:21:37:55: <ihope> Is networking with Scheme any harder/easier than with Haskell?
2006-03-08.txt:21:38:25: <ihope> My current Haskell "om u nead this" is classes.
2006-03-08.txt:22:11:36: <SimonRC> that's the 10% of stuff you do with Haskell type classes that you can't do in Java
2006-03-08.txt:22:13:57: <ihope> Like Haskell's (Read [a]) => a
2006-03-08.txt:22:14:30: <fuse> ok. i don't know haskell. i've done java professionally, though. excuse me while i go shoot myself.
2006-03-08.txt:22:31:54: <fuse> ok. i should learn haskell, then.
2006-03-08.txt:22:32:09: <fuse> is there a shortcut? like haskell for idiots or something?
2006-03-08.txt:22:32:40: <fuse> is this any good? http://www.haskell.org/tutorial/
2006-03-08.txt:22:33:44: <ihope> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Haskell
2006-03-09.txt:01:10:45: <SimonRC> My technique for learning Haskell was a sort of Esme Wetherwax technique...
2006-03-09.txt:01:17:50: <SimonRC> Monads were added to Haskell for the express purpose of creating the IO monad.
2006-03-09.txt:20:00:02: <fuse> did you already program in some imperative language before learning haskell?
2006-03-09.txt:20:01:02: <ihope> Well, once you learn functional programming in general, Haskell's a piece of cake.
2006-03-10.txt:15:52:19: <jix> i did it that way in my rhotor interpreter (which would work in c++ too but it wouldn't be lazy the way i implemented it in haskell)
2006-03-10.txt:17:20:56: <ihope> So (-: )-: v_v is legal Haskell code.
2006-03-11.txt:14:53:12: <SimonRC> Likely Haskell:     rot = rotY (pu/8) .*. rotX (pu/12)
2006-03-11.txt:23:06:54: <fuse> ihope: where's that haskell book you recommended again?
2006-03-11.txt:23:07:05: <ihope> I reccomended a Haskell book?
2006-03-11.txt:23:08:09: <ihope> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Haskell
2006-03-12.txt:20:31:23: <ihope_> Heh, I started something over at #haskell.
2006-03-12.txt:21:45:04: <ihope_> Three channels: #esoteric, #haskell and #meta-science.
2006-03-15.txt:15:50:38: <ihope> So should I waste time on IRC, waste time playing games, or study Haskell concurrency and stuff?
2006-03-15.txt:15:55:20: <SimonRC> ihope: haskell
2006-03-17.txt:10:00:51: <jix> i read a german haskell tutorial
2006-03-18.txt:19:00:07: * ihope realizes that EagleBot hasn't been written yet, laughs, and begins reading the Haskell API documentation
2006-03-19.txt:16:51:02: <ihope_> "Be existed a interface by Haskell that?"
2006-03-19.txt:16:54:33: <ihope_> "Is there an interface for that for Haskell?
2006-03-19.txt:16:57:58: <ski__> i don't know of any haskell interface, no
2006-03-19.txt:16:58:58: <ski__> wouldn't you need to e.g. port a haskell-runtime to the platform, then ?
2006-03-19.txt:16:59:28: <ski__> or were you thinking of a DSL in haskell that compiles down to, say, quite simple nqc ?
2006-03-19.txt:17:01:18: <SimonRC> they could accomodate the Haskell RTS
2006-03-24.txt:21:06:10: <fuse> ihope: ever read 'the haskell road to logic, maths and programming'?
2006-03-26.txt:15:06:09: <ihope> Hmm, thought I was in #haskell.
2006-03-26.txt:15:06:32: <ihope> Haskell is a programming language...
2006-03-27.txt:00:25:08: <SimonRC> I used Haskell, of course
2006-04-07.txt:03:59:50: <ihope> Hmm, Haskell's readsPrec is nice. Let's see here...
2006-04-29.txt:00:10:17: <kate`> kipple, ditto your haskell program
2006-04-29.txt:18:28:21: <nooga> haskell
2006-04-29.txt:18:28:48: <ihope_> I like Haskell.
2006-05-05.txt:23:09:32: <ihope_> Stick a "let" in front of that second line and do some twiddling between the braces to get valid Haskell code. :-)
2006-05-05.txt:23:14:20: <ihope_> > join #haskell
2006-05-06.txt:02:46:31: <lament> JOIN #HASKELL OR DIE
2006-05-06.txt:02:46:36: <lament> GET A HASKELL BRAIN IMPLANT OR DIE
2006-05-15.txt:03:09:56: <SimonRC> (  http://www.haskell.org/haskore/  )
2006-05-24.txt:16:14:36: <ihope> Is that a Haskell expression?
2006-05-24.txt:16:14:55: <ihope> Oh right, Haskell uses /=, not !=.
2006-05-24.txt:17:30:04: <jix> SimonRC: i thought of haskell and...
2006-05-24.txt:17:30:10: <jix> i don't want a cpu that works like haskell...
2006-05-26.txt:06:07:36: <Arrogant> One of these days I'm going to learn Haskell and implement something in that.
2006-05-26.txt:06:07:51: <Arrogant> I heard Haskell is good at parsing.
2006-05-26.txt:06:09:20: <Arrogant> Haskell done hurt me brain.
2006-05-30.txt:01:20:26: <ihope> Now, ~ would have the type IO TimeVar, if it were a Haskell value.
2006-05-30.txt:21:00:06: <SimonRC> (#haskell)
2006-06-01.txt:20:36:48: <SimonRC> I prefer Haskell.
2006-06-01.txt:20:37:15: <bsmntbombdood> haskell is cool
2006-06-01.txt:20:37:19: <SimonRC> I have used the same method for learning several things about Haskell:
2006-06-01.txt:20:39:46: <bsmntbombdood> i just started learning haskell
2006-06-01.txt:20:44:32: <SimonRC> see "Tying the knot" in the haskell wiki
2006-06-04.txt:01:25:24: <ihope> Haskell to Unlambda.
2006-06-04.txt:01:30:30: <ihope> Hey, it looks like D could be almost as good as Haskell!
2006-06-04.txt:01:31:09: <ihope> Of course, it's hard to compare a language like Haskell to a language like D, because they're so different.
2006-06-04.txt:01:38:04: <ihope> Haskell just plain doesn't have foo.bar.
2006-06-04.txt:01:38:21: <bsmntbombdood> there's oo dilaects of haskell
2006-06-04.txt:01:50:35: <SimonRC> you could wrtite a module in haskell to allow it to emulate OO, I suppose
2006-06-04.txt:02:04:06: <ihope> main(){} -- Pretend this is Haskell, then.
2006-06-04.txt:02:18:26: <ihope> s/C/Haskell/
2006-06-04.txt:02:18:36: <ihope> s/Haskell/Unlambda/ :-P
2006-06-05.txt:00:36:45: <SimonRC> while Haskell absolutely rocks on the complicated-datastructure-initialisation front, it sucks on the complicated-datastructure-mutation front.
2006-06-05.txt:16:31:48: <ihope> #esoteric here, #nethack here, #haskell here, #math here, #spore there, and #sporks somewhere else.
2006-06-05.txt:23:00:16: <ihope> Why not add inline assembler to Haskell, to? :-P
2006-06-05.txt:23:01:05: <ihope> Like the Haskell FFI, slightly.
2006-06-07.txt:20:43:16: <ihope_> I'd give you a Haskell expression that does that, but my arrow keys don't work, and that makes it Abosulutely Out of the Question.
2006-06-08.txt:04:44:47: <vincenz> it's a mixture of haskell and ml
2006-06-14.txt:23:29:47: <ihope> I dunno. In the Haskell program "main = seq undefined (3+2)", is the (3+2) a comment?
2006-06-17.txt:17:33:14: <ihope> BASIC and Haskell are opposites.
2006-06-24.txt:22:42:46: <SimonRC> *cough*Haskell*cough*
2006-06-24.txt:22:52:41: <SimonRC> Therefore I would attack it with Haskell.
2006-06-24.txt:22:55:08: <SimonRC> IIRC, there is a cross-compiler to the JVM for Haskell anyway
2006-06-24.txt:22:55:32: <_W_> yes, but is it simpler to *output* haskell than jva bytecode?
2006-06-24.txt:22:58:07: <SimonRC> I could write a Haskell library to do that, though it would take me ages to make it as good as I hope BCEL is.
2006-06-25.txt:02:24:59: <ihope> main = forkIO main >> forkIO main -- a Haskell forkbomb
2006-06-25.txt:02:25:10: <ihope> main = forkIO main >> main -- another Haskell forkbomb
2006-07-01.txt:22:52:22: <SimonRC> It's just Haskell written like Sadol with the datatypes of Lisp.
2006-07-20.txt:22:36:30: <ihope> I see what whoever said when he/she said that typeless Haskell would be a nightmare to debug.
2006-07-20.txt:22:39:21: <jix> typeless haskell?
2006-07-20.txt:22:39:52: <ihope> Well... Haskell with all the type stuff done at runtime.
2006-07-20.txt:22:46:35: <ihope> Haskell, with types :-)
2006-07-25.txt:04:42:14: <ihope> Unlambda is easy. Just write Haskell, turn it into combinators, replace "fix" with some esoteric thingy, perform abstraction elimination, and string it all together!
2006-07-25.txt:16:17:43: <ihope_> Haskell = (|really stupid> + |really great>)/sqrt 2
2006-07-25.txt:16:18:27: <ihope_> I've never seen any C++ networking stuff, but in Haskell it's just a matter of some thingy. Lemme see here...
2006-07-25.txt:19:52:47: <lament> (or, i suppose, writing the whole thing in Haskell? But somehow i doubt that would really be an efficient solution)
2006-07-25.txt:19:53:10: <ihope> I dunno if Haskell would help.
2006-07-27.txt:17:40:36: <ihope> Quantum Haskell.
2006-07-27.txt:19:07:27: <Razor-X> Quantum Haskell?!
2006-07-27.txt:19:17:32: <lament> i'm pretty sure there's already something very much like quantum haskell.
2006-07-27.txt:19:31:25: <Razor-X> You have to understand that to code in Haskell too.
2006-07-27.txt:21:14:11: <ihope> Well, the Haskell form of that is "f x = if x < 0 then 3 else 4", and that's pretty much how it works in lambda calculus.
2006-07-27.txt:21:14:59: <Razor-X> I know Haskell (I've written some nifty big things, like an IRC bot), but it *is* a programming language after all.
2006-07-28.txt:01:20:05: <Razor-X> (Note: I said the same thing about my Podcast client in Haskell.)
2006-07-28.txt:17:01:04: <Razor-X> Like you can in Haskell.
2006-07-28.txt:17:02:45: <ihope_> Like Haskell's do {this; that <- these; return those}?
2006-07-28.txt:17:04:55: <Razor-X> Haskell indentation does get annoying, especially with let.
2006-08-02.txt:22:14:57: <ihope_> Is Haskell considered sane?
2006-08-10.txt:01:44:31: <ihope> Haskell uses mathematical functions, but pretty much everything else uses imperative ones.
2006-08-10.txt:01:53:37: <ihope> I think my dad taught me Pascal, then I tried to learn C, then he tried to teach me Java, then I learned Haskell, then I looked at Python.
2006-08-10.txt:01:55:06: <ihope> Then I took a look at Lisp, and somehow landed with Haskell.
2006-08-10.txt:03:44:26: <Razor-X> I like Haskell and Ruby.
2006-08-11.txt:01:25:40: <Razor-X> In Haskell the problem I had with my IRC bot was that it was logistically impossible to move the pointer to the end of the read-buffer. I found a (somewhat memory expensive) workaround to that, but I never buffered writes.
2006-08-11.txt:02:42:00: <Razor-X> Haskell is lazy.
2006-08-11.txt:02:42:57: <Razor-X> But Haskell says on its website it is a lazy programming language.
2006-08-11.txt:02:45:00: <Razor-X> Python and Haskell use indentation which gets annoying.
2006-08-11.txt:04:58:31: <Razor-X> Along with Haskell and all the little Esolangs.
2006-08-16.txt:01:02:36: <oerjanj> which makes me wonder what you think about haskell :-)
2006-08-16.txt:01:07:23: <oerjanj> i suppose if you don't like to find symbols you don't like haskell syntax either
2006-08-16.txt:01:59:26: <oerjanj> even in haskell, the top level of a program is essentially imperative
2006-08-16.txt:02:24:25: * oerjanj made his Haskell version work
2006-08-16.txt:02:28:50: <oerjanj> a Haskell one-liner
2006-08-21.txt:01:22:25: <ihope> Haskell is more fun.
2006-08-22.txt:00:29:39: <Razor-X> If you want to write Haskell in Unlambda and then write your program in Haskell, be my guest.
2006-08-22.txt:03:30:36: <Razor-X> I know a whole bunch. C, Haskell, and Ruby are my strongest.
2006-08-22.txt:03:31:17: <Razor-X> Go functional with Lisp and Haskell. That's *really* hard. Ruby is really really simple.
2006-08-22.txt:03:33:57: <Razor-X> Only Haskell is pure.
2006-08-22.txt:03:43:54: <Razor-X> Haskell is more, IMO.
2006-08-22.txt:03:46:08: <Razor-X> putStrLn "Haskell is lots of fun"
2006-08-22.txt:03:53:55: <Razor-X> Haskell is Lazy!
2006-08-22.txt:22:25:11: <ihope> I think that'd allow a person to treat anything as a list in Haskell.
2006-08-22.txt:22:42:00: <ihope> Haskell uses x:y for a cons.
[too many lines; stopping]