4 ms·
> In simplistic terms, Clean seems to be a “better Haskell”. Actually Haskell is a better (or at least, standardised) Clean. There was a lot of interest in la
by chriswarbo 5y ago
> In simplistic terms, Clean seems to be a “better Haskell”.
Actually Haskell is a better (or at least, standardised) Clean.
There was a lot of interest in lazy functional programming in the 1980s, but everyone made their own mutually-incompatible systems (e.g. Clean, Miranda, and I heard that even Scheme was debating laziness at one point).
Eventually a committee came together to standardise on a single language (which could be extended in interesting ways). The result was Haskell.
- gnufx 5y agoAn important point was to be non-proprietary, wasn't it? Clean and Miranda were proprietary, although the implementations are now available with permissive licences. Edit: I don't know about Scheme debating laziness as such, but there's Friedman and Wise https://help.luddy.indiana.edu/techreports/TRNNN.cgi?trnum=TR44 https://help.luddy.indiana.edu/techreports/TRNNN.cgi?trnum=T... and there was Lispkit Lisp, as in Hoare's CSP book.