Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Actually, there exists no interpreter for Haskell. Period.
Haskell has never been implemented. Every implementation has a large collection of corner cases that aren't correctly parsed; these can be recognized as the wontfix bugs.
Erm... I'm having a "there is no spoon" moment here... Feeling quite lost now...
OTOH, GHCi just takes an expression, parses it and interprets it. This
Haha, no.
GHCi takes an expression, parses it, wraps it in module Main { main = print (expr) }, type checks it, transforms it to Core, optimizes, transforms to STG, optimizes, transforms to object code for a bytecode machine, links it, and emulates the result. Three times, since it needs to try each of expr, expr >>= print, and print expr.
Hugs is also a full compiler, but for some dumb reason doesn't support saving the object code to disk, so you have to recompile everything each time.
I once write a trivial little Tcl script that could parse and execute a biggish subset of Haskell. Given that there are minds out there awesom enough to write an efficient Haskell compiler, you'd think a naive little interpreter for running small expressions wouldn't post much of a problem...
appears to be a *much* more lightweight approach. I have had some
Not at all. GHCi seems much faster because GHC's nontrivial startup overhead is amortized over the entire run.
I...see... I think... hmm...
Whatever... I'd just like to see an online way to run Haskell, and since the Lambdabot webpage still shows no sign of working...
That's my fault - I designed a much simpler configuration interface for lambdabot, but nobody has been motivated to un-bitrot GOA yet.
Um... what's GOA?