I think the only way your release is going to get significant feedback
is when it's ready to compile substantial existing Haskell programs
unaltered.
I might try UHC on some toy example for a few minuts, but if it falls
over when I give it code that I've already written I'll soon give up
using it.
I don't know what state UHC is in rigth now, because it doesn't
install with cabal and I'm too lazy to install by hand.
I think the bar for entry into the Haskell compiler market is pretty
high these days. Not only do you need to support (98% of) Haskell 98,
but you also need to support the most commonly used extensions.
Still, I think it's great to see another Haskell compiler!
-- Lennart
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Stefan Holdermans
If we had been interested in raising fierce discussions about n+k patterns or how and where cabal installs things, we could have easily achieved the same effect with much less effort.
you mean that we should shoot up? :)
If the release of UHC contributes to whatever discussion regarding Haskell, that's of course, in its own right, a Good Thing---as long as the discussion turns out to be a fruitful one and doesn't end up in a religious war. (I'm by no means claiming that the current ones on (n + k)-patterns and cabal are!)
However, that's of course not our main motivation for releasing UHC. We ourselves find the EHC infrastructure very useful for experimentation with type systems and back ends. Owing a great deal to the community, we hope that by releasing the infrastructure in the form of a not so much mature but at least maturing Haskell compiler we can give something back to the community and have it profit from the contained technology. Therefore, it would be a shame if UHC was only to be associated with debating language features and build systems; I'm confident, however, that it won't.
Cheers,
Stefan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe