<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/10/2 Darrin Thompson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:darrinth@gmail.com">darrinth@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Don Stewart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dons@galois.com" target="_blank">dons@galois.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while<br>
single-implementation languages conquer :)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br>Seems like Haskell has a pretty clear story about which is the right implementation for general purpose use. I don't see a Scheme problem here.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>Just make Haskell more difficult to implement than Scheme and you've preemptively avoided that problem :-)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br><br>--<br>Darrin<br><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>