Talk:Clean (programming language)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Examples

Resolved

Might want to include how it's one of the most efficient languages in calculating the Ackermann Function. [1] 70.111.251.203 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the Debian shootout has been offline for quite some time now I don't think it's useful to include it. There are some references to fast code in general though. Kaĉjo (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I see this Fibonacci example often when people try to show off some language's features. But this function is terribly slow! It takes 2^n steps to compute the nth number. It would be enlightening for those who are just starting to look at this language if someone included an actually usable Fibonacci function implementation. (Yes, I know that Fibonacci numbers can be calculated in one step with a single formula, but here I mean an implementation that is usable for any number series in which x_n can be calculated as a function of x_{n-1} and x_{n-2}).

I have added an efficient Fibonacci implementation. Kaĉjo (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Various comments

Resolved

"Delayed evaluation" should probably be replaced by / supplemented by "non-strict evaluation". There should be some more clear separation between language features (e.g., referential transparency) and tools features (e.g., IDE) -- these are entirely separate questions. Developers, etc. should be mentioned. Maybe a comparison with a language like Haskell would be helpful? Is it open-source?

"Delayed" has been replaced by "lazy" now which I think is OK. There is also better separation now, and a comparison with Haskell. The designers are mentioned now. It is open source, see the license. Kaĉjo (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"language Clean is heavily influenced by Haskell"

Resolved

I first read about Concurrent Clean(shortened to Clean) in Byte magazine in 1994. It was only in the 2000's that I heard of Haskell. The truth of which influenced which language is not straight foward as made out in the article. Clean is the oldest of the two languages (http://sequence.complete.org/node/119). But Clean has always been a work in progress so since its creation its syntax has changed from time to time; and some of that syntax apparently was borrowed from Haskell. It says on the wiki page "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes". That tells you how much you can trust its accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.249.167 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not say "heavily" any more, but lists both languages as influenced by the other, as is the case. The phrasing is neutral. Kaĉjo (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Why Clean is better than Haskell"?

Resolved

I don't think the content is necessarily bad and a comparison to Haskell is definitely relevant with it being a much more popular, but very similar language. However, a lot of the article reads like someone is trying to convince me that Clean is better than Haskell. --Anka.213 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have significantly cut in the comparison to Haskell (previously called "versus Haskell") to address this issue. Kaĉjo (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)