From f02dc3a3eb698b384d4609047f695d73d1c96719 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mike Sperber Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026 17:41:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] "Marshell" -> "Marshall" --- podcast/54/transcript.markdown | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/podcast/54/transcript.markdown b/podcast/54/transcript.markdown index 34095574..afbd44b3 100644 --- a/podcast/54/transcript.markdown +++ b/podcast/54/transcript.markdown @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ One of the projects we did with Granule was to look at Rust-style ownership and *DO (0:46:30)*: Well, I did think it would be interesting to see what it would be like to write a small climate model in Haskell and try to approach the kind of performance that one gets in Fortran. Almost as a thought experiment to see what’s it actually like and why isn’t functional programming used in these domains, or what are the gaps in expressivity. -With one of my PhD students, Daniel Marshell, we started trying to do this using the linear types extensions to take a well-known intermediate complexity weather model and re-implement it from Fortran into Haskell, using these extensions and seeing if that could work. It’s a work in progress, and it hasn’t been as smooth as we would have liked, which is interesting, which tells us something about the languages. And it’s trying to find the right patterns and the right idioms in Haskell, and particularly the linear Haskell way of doing things that gives us what we need. So, that’s really a bit of an experiment to see what is this expressivity gap between the two. +With one of my PhD students, Daniel Marshall, we started trying to do this using the linear types extensions to take a well-known intermediate complexity weather model and re-implement it from Fortran into Haskell, using these extensions and seeing if that could work. It’s a work in progress, and it hasn’t been as smooth as we would have liked, which is interesting, which tells us something about the languages. And it’s trying to find the right patterns and the right idioms in Haskell, and particularly the linear Haskell way of doing things that gives us what we need. So, that’s really a bit of an experiment to see what is this expressivity gap between the two. I think that Haskell as a programming language continues to be a really exciting project and a really exciting language that has this dual function as both a research vehicle for new language ideas, but also a really serious, high-quality compiler that can be used to do very important core, serious work. And I know lots of people use it in their day-to-day work and in industry and in context where there’s software deployed using Haskell. And I think that’s an amazing result for the Haskell language. And I hope it continues to be used in many places. I think it’s having an increasing influence on lots of other languages, and there are spinoff-style languages, things like PureScript, that have taken a lot of the core ideas and built something that is new. And I think that’s a great place to be for Haskell. And I think it will keep influencing languages in the future. So, I hope that more people do get into Haskell and are influenced by its way of doing things. It will have its own route in the future to developing in new ways, but influencing other languages in other ways as well.