6 ms·

Disciple: A Strict Dialect of Haskell

58 points by primodemus 16y ago

lallysingh 16y ago
I have quite a few ML-loving friends who might be into this...
carterschonwald 16y ago
From a quick look through, the current type system and semantics seems to have more in common with an ML dialect than Haskell (though its syntax and long term intended type system style does resemble haskell's more closely)
neutronicus 16y ago
Color me interested. Pragmatism where destructive array updates are concerned is a boon for the numerical stuff I'm interested in.
- dons 16y ago
  Remember that regular Haskell has pragmatic destructive arrays as well (e.g. repa, vector, hmatrix). The primary interesting thing about DDC, in my view, is the effect types -- the type system can infer what kind of monadic effects you're using.
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    Yeah, I guess I came off as slurring Haskell a little bit. Sorry. Could you point me to any resources on how to use Haskell for numeric stuff? I've been thinking of doing a blog series on neutron transport with either Haskell or Common Lisp, but I'd like to peruse a few examples of idiomatic Haskell numerics before shooting my mouth off.
    - dons 16y ago
      My colleague, Matt Sottile, has a nice blog on languages, functional programming, and scientific (often numerical) computing, http://syntacticsalt.com/ http://syntacticsalt.com/
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
itsnotvalid 16y ago
There is quite a lot of Haskell dialects... the last one listed here was Atomo (http://atomo-lang.org/ http://atomo-lang.org/) and now another contender. Or simply put Haskell the language is also good at hosting dialects.
- vito 16y ago
  Atomo isn't a Haskell dialect - it's another language. The first implementation is written in Haskell, but other than that there's no relation.
- winxordie 16y ago
  Atomo's an EDSL in Haskell. I think I'd have to consider Clojure to be a Java dialect by your definition.
  - itsnotvalid 16y ago
    I guess I've mistaken the stand-point in that, my bad!
SwellJoe 16y ago
I thought Haskell was a strict dialect of Haskell.
- gb 16y ago
  The "strict" refers to the fact it's not lazily evaluated.
  - swift 16y ago
    I suspect the GP is referring to Haskell's ability to use strict evaluation via language features like the ! operator. (though I could be wrong)
joelhaasnoot 16y ago
How is this different to Clean? (a much older Haskell/research variant, see http://wiki.clean.cs.ru.nl/Clean http://wiki.clean.cs.ru.nl/Clean)
- gwern 16y ago
  Haskell first appeared 2/3 years after Clean. The right description is more like 'Haskell and Clean are the twin Free offspring of the lazy FP language Miranda, which unfortunately was proprietary; they both have different but related approaches to being pure'.
  - joelhaasnoot 16y ago
    Ok, didn't realize that timing. There is a Haskell/Clean crosscompiler I believe too.
- Hemospectrum 16y ago
  From the descriptions, Clean is lazy and pure, whereas Disciple is neither.
  - primodemus 16y ago
    According to Sabry's criteria for pure languages: 1. it is a conservative extension of the simply typed λ-calculus. 2. it has a well-defined call-by-value, call-by-need, and call-by-name evaluation functions (implementations), and 3. all three evaluation functions (implementations) are weakly equivalent. Disciple is pure. This is argued in the first chapter of Ben Lippmeier's thesis: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~benl/papers/thesis/lippmeier-impure-world.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~benl/papers/thesis/lippmeier-imp...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

58 points by primodemus 16y ago

I have quite a few ML-loving friends who might be into this...

From a quick look through, the current type system and semantics seems to have more in common with an ML dialect than Haskell (though its syntax and long term intended type system style does resemble haskell's more closely)

neutronicus 16y ago

Color me interested. Pragmatism where destructive array updates are concerned is a boon for the numerical stuff I'm interested in.

dons 16y ago
Remember that regular Haskell has pragmatic destructive arrays as well (e.g. repa, vector, hmatrix). The primary interesting thing about DDC, in my view, is the effect types -- the type system can infer what kind of monadic effects you're using.
- neutronicus 16y ago
  Yeah, I guess I came off as slurring Haskell a little bit. Sorry. Could you point me to any resources on how to use Haskell for numeric stuff? I've been thinking of doing a blog series on neutron transport with either Haskell or Common Lisp, but I'd like to peruse a few examples of idiomatic Haskell numerics before shooting my mouth off.
  - dons 16y ago
    My colleague, Matt Sottile, has a nice blog on languages, functional programming, and scientific (often numerical) computing, http://syntacticsalt.com/ http://syntacticsalt.com/
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

itsnotvalid 16y ago

There is quite a lot of Haskell dialects... the last one listed here was Atomo (http://atomo-lang.org/ http://atomo-lang.org/) and now another contender. Or simply put Haskell the language is also good at hosting dialects.

vito 16y ago
Atomo isn't a Haskell dialect - it's another language. The first implementation is written in Haskell, but other than that there's no relation.
winxordie 16y ago
Atomo's an EDSL in Haskell. I think I'd have to consider Clojure to be a Java dialect by your definition.
- itsnotvalid 16y ago
  I guess I've mistaken the stand-point in that, my bad!

SwellJoe 16y ago

I thought Haskell was a strict dialect of Haskell.

gb 16y ago
The "strict" refers to the fact it's not lazily evaluated.
- swift 16y ago
  I suspect the GP is referring to Haskell's ability to use strict evaluation via language features like the ! operator. (though I could be wrong)

joelhaasnoot 16y ago

How is this different to Clean? (a much older Haskell/research variant, see http://wiki.clean.cs.ru.nl/Clean http://wiki.clean.cs.ru.nl/Clean)

gwern 16y ago
Haskell first appeared 2/3 years after Clean. The right description is more like 'Haskell and Clean are the twin Free offspring of the lazy FP language Miranda, which unfortunately was proprietary; they both have different but related approaches to being pure'.
- joelhaasnoot 16y ago
  Ok, didn't realize that timing. There is a Haskell/Clean crosscompiler I believe too.
Hemospectrum 16y ago
From the descriptions, Clean is lazy and pure, whereas Disciple is neither.
- primodemus 16y ago
  According to Sabry's criteria for pure languages: 1. it is a conservative extension of the simply typed λ-calculus. 2. it has a well-defined call-by-value, call-by-need, and call-by-name evaluation functions (implementations), and 3. all three evaluation functions (implementations) are weakly equivalent. Disciple is pure. This is argued in the first chapter of Ben Lippmeier's thesis: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~benl/papers/thesis/lippmeier-impure-world.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~benl/papers/thesis/lippmeier-imp...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]