3 ms·
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)
by 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 agoHaskell 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 agoOk, didn't realize that timing. There is a Haskell/Clean crosscompiler I believe too.
- Hemospectrum 16y agoFrom the descriptions, Clean is lazy and pure, whereas Disciple is neither.
- primodemus 16y agoAccording 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...