Benjamin Pierce wrote:
* What are the relative advantages of Hugs and GHC, beyond the obvious (Hugs is smaller and easier for people not named Simon to modify, while GHC is a real compiler and has the most up-to-date hacks to the type checker)? Do people generally use one or the other for everything, or are they similar enough to use Hugs at some moments and GHC at others? <snip> * I wrote a little program for generating Sierpinkski Carpets, and was astonished to find that it runs out of heap under Hugs (with standard settings -- raising the heap size with -h leads to a happier result).
As one data point, I don't think "SOEGraphics" works with GHC or recent versions of Hugs (http://www.haskell.org/soe/graphics.htm). I also tried a modified version of your Sierpinkski carpet program (changed to spit out a PostScript file, since I don't have SOEGraphics). Hugs chokes without increasing the stack, while my copy of GHC 6.2.1 runs the program below quite fine, even without enabling optimizations. Greg Buchholz --Floating point PostScript version of Sierpinkski Carpet fillSquare x y s = putStr $ x1 ++ y2 ++ x1 ++ y1 ++ x2 ++ y1 ++ x2 ++ y2 ++ " box\n" where x1 = (show x) ++ " " x2 = (show (x+s)) ++ " " y1 = (show y) ++ " " y2 = (show (y+s)) ++ " " carpet x y s = if s < 1 then fillSquare x y s else let s' = s / 3 in do carpet x y s' carpet (x+s') y s' carpet (x+s'*2) y s' carpet x (y+s') s' carpet (x+s'*2) (y+s') s' carpet x (y+s'*2) s' carpet (x+s') (y+s'*2) s' carpet (x+s'*2) (y+s'*2) s' psPreamble = putStr $ "%!PS-Adobe-2.0\n" ++ "/box\n" ++ "{ newpath moveto lineto lineto lineto closepath fill}" ++ "def\n 0.05 setlinewidth\n" main = do psPreamble carpet 50 250 500 putStr "showpage\n"