From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Pascal Martin Subject: Re: scripting/extension language for Ada (was : Re: tagged types extensions) Date: 2000/02/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 584829178 References: <389207CC.C16D80E8@averstar.com> <38971028.BB16D8A2@earthlink.net> <3899F757.FAE131B3@free.fr> <389D43A6.786C7B79@free.fr> <881hft$9ac1@news.cis.okstate.edu> X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: typhoon.we.mediaone.net 950327516 24.130.45.139 (Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:51:56 PST) Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:51:56 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <881hft$9ac1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) wrote: > On 10 Feb 2000 13:35:57 -0800, Ray Blaak wrote: >>Do ML or Haskell shells exist? It would be interesting to see how implicit >>static strong typing makes things more correct while style allowing for easy >>writing of command scripts. > > Given SML-NJ, what would it take for a ML shell besides some shell > functions that could be written in ML? I.e. would just a ML library > turn SML-NJ into what you're looking for? I looked a bit at ML. It seems the functional languages are rather more formal than convenient. Interfacing with the external world (or processes) cannot be defined formally, so these languages tend to be weak in that respect (because this was not the original intend of the design ?). As such, there are at least two of my criteria that are probably not met: process control and GUI. I am interested by a counterproof ! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pascal F. Martin.