On 12/15/07, Bulat Ziganshin
i see your point - it's easy to implement everything in GHC. probably its authors was sleeping last 15 years :)
As you well know, implementing things in GHC isn't always easy for people who aren't named "Simon", and people who are named "Simon" are often busy not so much with sleeping as with coming up with things that will lead to new papers rather than implementing straightforward things that are already pointed out in existing papers :-) (I know it's dangerous to call optimzations "straightforward" before you try to implement them, but even so.)
and ghc was so genuine that it was implemented general case without implementing special one :)
Isn't implementing the general case and leaving the users to use it to implement the special ones what functional programming is about? :-)
That's not true in C. The simplicity of Haskell (or rather, Core) means it's easy to implement a lot of things with a great deal of generality, an advantage that gcc doesn't have.
Core language has the same complexity for generating good code as C, C-- or LLVM
Sorry, I don't know what you mean here; I assume by "complexity" you don't mean "time complexity" or "space complexity", and anyway, I don't know what those would mean as applied to a programming language. Care to elaborate?
you may believe in what you want. i prefer to say about real situation. if it will be possible to quickly write good Haskell compiler, it was be written many years ago
As others have pointed out, I think that's false. Resources, financial and human, have been thrown at C compilation that have not been thrown at Haskell compilers. As hard-working as the people who work on Haskell compilers are, there aren't very many of them and none of them have "writing Haskell compilers" as a job description. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier * catamorphism.org * Often in error, never in doubt "The blues isn't about feeling better, it's about making other people feel worse, and making a few bucks while you're at it." -- Bleeding Gums Murphy