On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 07:06:20AM -0400, David Roundy wrote: > Yeah, that's essentially what I've got. The only difference being that in > my case "usually" user's shouldn't need to know that they are using a > programming language. Which is why using a declarative language sounds so > nice. I'll have to explain to users the difference between "actions" and > "definitions", but that shouldn't be too hard as long as users don't > realize they are programming! :) Declarative statements are how you'd > normally expect an input file to behave (i.e. the order doesn't matter).
hear, hear. I also love declarative langugages for embedded applications. A lot of time they just 'make more sense'. something which might be interesting is Q, a sort of dynamically typed haskell based on term rewriting with a portable embeddable implementation written in C http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/~ag/q/q.php not to distract people from writting an embedded haskell :). if you are writing your main application in haskell, adding an interpreting stage to 'hatchet' or pulling the interpreter out of nhc should not be to unreasonable. perhaps there should be a standard haskell interpreter written in haskell in the libraries. John -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
