On 10/16/10 11:22 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Much better. Though I *do* think mentioning the main implementations and their qualities is a good thing to o, right after this:
"[...]The most important Haskell implementation, ghc [like to ghc page], has served as a test bed for practical application of cutting egde research into the language as well as its compilation to efficiently executable code."
Objection to calling GHC the most "important". The most mature, most fully featured, most common, or even the standard implementation,, sure. But saying GHC is more important than the rest implies that (among others) the work on JHC and UHC is "unimportant". To the contrary, I think JHC and UHC are, perhaps, more important than GHC precisely because they are treading new waters that the standard implementation cannot afford to explore. -- Live well, ~wren