On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 10:38 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Albert,
Sunday, April 29, 2007, 2:51:24 AM, you wrote:
Is it just me who thinks this is a silly idea? Why should GHC include a C++ compiler?
.NET literates, will benefit from the many libraries available in .NET. Can we also include a .NET runtime, a .NET documentation suite, all .NET
you are lame.
Hia Bulat, It's really much better to criticise ideas rather than people personally, though I do understand that Albert was making a joke at your expense. In that situation its much better to try and ignore it rather than flaming. We do want to keep the various Haskell mailing lists civil :-)
java/c# libs can't be used with current ghc, so 99% of libs we may need are written in c/c++. making porting these lubs as hard as possible and then heroically rewrite them in pure haskell is one way, good for PhD and other pseudo-scientific activity. building bridges to the world of existing software is the way to the real haskell usage in big projects
Making it possible to use Haskell in mixed language projects with C++ and Java is obviously a good thing, but it's not really a scalable solution to distribute them all together. We should look at how to improve cabal+ghc to make it easier to use them as a component of a larger system. One example of this would be not requiring that ghc is used to do a final link, we should be able to make static libs and then link them using ordinary gcc. Duncan