I was thinking typed LLVM.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:46 PM MarLinn
You'd probably want an ABI for types, no? You'd need a new executable format (among many other things!).
The question is: would it be worth it? Types are wonderful in Haskell because they allow us to structure our programs. What would structuring processes via types accomplish? It would improve the situation with shell scripting/pipes as you allude, but that's still an immense amount of effort.
Now that I think about it… having something like an ABI or a "Haskell binary format" with types in it might indeed be useful in more cases than this one.
It seems when a Haskell projects gets a bit larger people tend to search for ways to make it more modular. They try plugin frameworks, OS-level dynamic linking, on-the-fly compilation etc. But I repeatedly get the feeling that all these current approaches aren't actually very good. But what if we had some kind of specialized format for compiled, dynamically loadable, typed Haskell libraries? Something between a plain OS library and bytecode. This might help make programs more modular while keeping them type safe.
One thing that might be useful to add next would be some kind of centralized registry of types, so that a plugin/library could extend the ways the system could be extended.
And going along this line of thought even further leads to… uhm… oh. OH.
Ok, so, it's the month of Halloween, right?
Because… OSGi, but in Haskell.
Well, maybe there's some sane point in between?
Cheers, MarLinn
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-- brandon s allbery kf8nh allbery.b@gmail.com