All of Haskell was possible 20 years ago.  The LML compiler (written in LML) compiled a language similar to Haskell,  the only real differences is syntax and the type system (and monadic IO wasn't invented yet).  It was a bit slow to recompile itself, but not bad.  A 16MHz 386 and 8M of memory certainly sufficed.
<br><br>&nbsp; -- Lennart<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Maurí­cio</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:briqueabraque@yahoo.com">briqueabraque@yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br><br>I like Haskell, and use it as my main<br>language. However, compiling a Haskell program<br>usually takes a lot of memory and CPU. So I was<br>curious, and would like to know from computer<br>scholars in this list: how much of Haskell would
<br>be possible in machines with really low CPU and<br>memory? Which features would be feasible for a<br>compiler to implement, and for programmers to use?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Maurício<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br><a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>