-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 20:33 schrieben Sie:
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code? This would result in a huge performance loss, I think. Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size savings, I would think. C obviously has worked quite fine under exactly
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: this restraint (though C implementations obviously aren't built to take as great advantage of inlining library code as Haskell may be).
I think that the performance loss is much higher in the case of Haskell because of Lazy Evaluation, massive use of higher order functions and possibly more. Maybe one of the GHC developers could comment on this?
Perhaps the best approach currently for creating dynamically loadable modules in Haskell is to expose the interface via FFI, then? (I suspect that in most cases, you'd want to provide that as an option, but of course not as the only means of interfacing with the library, for those who don't want to make the DLL-vs-optimizations tradeoff.) - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer. GNU Maintainer: wget, screen, teseq http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI5lq/7M8hyUobTrERAn7aAJwPz4wbu0W4RPNhlgKGmd+2glZDewCfbi9d LQtahiILQg83vkzyfAR2BV4= =mjFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----