Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | Incidentally, GHCi is just about working. It acts as | a compiler with a built-in 'make' too. Great! | Mixed interpreted/compiled code is on the way. This puzzles me a bit. From talking with people at the Haskell Workshop, I understood that GHCi would only be an interactive compiler. The disadvantage with that is that compilation time might be very long. But it was said that that is the price we pay. The only advantage I can see with interpreted code is the fact that it can be compiled (or "processed") much faster. Will GHCi reach speeds up to Hugs level? One bad thing with Hugs is that, for large systems, the loading/processing time gets longer, and, worse, is repeated every time one loads the system. This is especially bad when using "runhugs". Hopefully GHCi will work better in that case! Another thing that worries me is that Hugs will die. Not only because I like Hugs a lot, but also that it is yet another Haskell system that is dying. Soon we will just have GHC and NHC left. (I have to consider HBC as dead by now, since nobody is fixing bug reports.) I know of nobody who is starting to implement a Haskell compiler from scratch. What do people think: is this a worrying situation? Regards, Koen. -- Koen Claessen http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~koen phone:+46-31-772 5424 mailto:koen@cs.chalmers.se ----------------------------------------------------- Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden