 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Today somebody posted a message anouncing an alpha release of a Haskell
to .NET bridge. Somebody reponded with "wow, great work! This could be a
real game changer."
I can't help but feel I've missed something important here...
Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:29:04 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
>actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
>bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
You're obviously trolling. This can't really be a valid set of questions/comments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48efacfa$1@news.povray.org...
> Today somebody posted a message anouncing an alpha release of a Haskell
> to .NET bridge. Somebody reponded with "wow, great work! This could be a
> real game changer."
>
> I can't help but feel I've missed something important here...
>
> Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
> actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
> bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
I think you misspelled: It's spelled Haskell, not .NET.
But yes, I don't see a significance to the bridge either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Since when is .NET actually important?
It's Microsoft's modern API to its OS. Programming for a Microsoft
environment without .NET is becoming increasingly more difficult.
> AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
> actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever.
That's certainly not true and indeed C# or VB.NET are today most used
languages with functional programming constructs. Certainly more
visible and popular than Haskell or Lisp ever will. That's why the praise.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft nor .NET.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I think you misspelled: It's spelled Haskell, not .NET.
>
> But yes, I don't see a significance to the bridge either.
LOL! That's cute...
Now there's an interesting question. Is Haskell rarer than .NET? Is the
tiny group of people using Haskell larger or smaller than the tiny group
of people using .NET?
Actually, given that .NET is being heavily promoted and marketed by a
huge household-name multinational corporation, you're probably right in
your popularity assessment. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:28:34 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft nor .NET.
Not trying to start a Microsoft bashing thread here, but I'm curious, why do you not
like Microsoft
nor .NET?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
> actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
> bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
What the...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now there's an interesting question. Is Haskell rarer than .NET? Is the
> tiny group of people using Haskell larger or smaller than the tiny group
> of people using .NET?
.NET is more used by a few orders of magnitude!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:28:34 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft nor .NET.
>
> Not trying to start a Microsoft bashing thread here, but I'm curious, why do you not
like Microsoft
> nor .NET?
Microsoft raped me when I was younger and I resent it.
Seriously, I just don't dig monopolies and so I just don't buy their
products. Besides the fact they are cheap bastards always preying on
someone else's idea and taking the advantage of their monopoly to make
it spread like fire, like .NET. The fact that most of their products
suck is a close second reason.
hey, I'm just answering the guy, ok?
But enough Microsoft bashing, they certainly may have some redeeming
qualities. Here's one recent idea from their research labs I found
genuinely mindblowing:
http://www.codeplex.com/touchless
Watch the video link. It's simply an amazingly creative use of current
cheap hardware to yield wonderful possibilities! Why wait for Surface
and other possibly expensive touchscreen-related techs to become a
reality in the near-future when you can have pretty much a large part of
the functionality today for free, using nothing more than an ordinary
webcam?
They even released it as an open-source framework and demo, under the
Microsoft Public License. If you have Windows and a webcam, try it now!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
> actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
> bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
Let me ask you a question: Are your opinions on .NET based on actual
usage experience, or on FUD from indetermined online sources? Do you even
know *what* .NET is? Or are you simply guessing what it might be?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
