[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Updating plans of lang/ghc
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:02:26AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:42:14PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> > >> Can ghc be built using some other Haskell implementation?
> > >
> > >Not AFAIK. But even if it theoretically can, the others (hugs and
> > >nhc98) don't really work well enough to do this in practice.
> > They don't have to work well enough for normal use.
> No. But... compiling ghc is probably the most demanding thing any
> Haskell implementation is likely to be asked to do. So they actually
> have to work better than for normal use. :-/
"Work better", nice euphemism.
Let's call a cat a cat. Haskell is a lab experiment gone wrong.
There's *no* production quality haskell compiler. Heck, even ghc has
an atrocious bootstrap process. And have you looked at its signal
handling ? It tends NOT to like ^Z/continue. I've hung hundreds of
compilers that way.
Main Index |
Thread Index |