I just found out about GHood through this thread, and since it impressed me very much to see something so cool, I feel bad making this comment... but I am always disturbed by the flickering effect produced by java applets in my browser (FF 3.0) while scrolling. From an implementation standpoint this is obviously a nitpick, but from a designer standpoint it nearly single-handedly kills any prospect of my putting it up on a page. With that said, I think the canvas+js idea is a wonderful alternative to proprietary Flash. Regards, Duane Johnson On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
It would be great to have a video of this in action up on youtube. You can simply 'recordmydesktop' on linux (and likely elsewhere), then upload the result.
I'm curious: how would a non-interactive animation running in Flash in a browser be better than an interactive animation running in Java in a browser?-) When I wrote GHood (many years ago), I explicitly looked into the applet option, in the hope that people would use it to document and discuss observation logs of their favourite Haskell strictness issues, with animations available on their web pages, right next to the discussions. That hasn't happened yet (the only users I was aware of were the DrHylo/Pointless Haskell project), but I just checked, the old .jar file, the source of which hasn't been perused for a long time, still worked in applet mode (in Opera, a browser I didn't know about in 2001, using a Java Runtime several versions removed from that time - try that in Haskell.. ;-), straight from that old project page (which also explains how to set such things up), so anyone could add animations of their favourite examples on their web-pages. But don't let that keep you or anyone else from addressing the youtube audience (one could add audio explanations, I guess).
Claus
PS. Perhaps these days, someone should rewrite the log viewer in Canvas+JavaScript as a more lightweight and modern platform.
It also helps the general adoption cause, having Haskell more visible and accessible. claus.reinke:
The problem occurs when the result value is needed and thus the thunks need to be reduced, starting with the outermost, which can't be reduced without reducing the next one .... etc and it's these reduction steps that are pushed on the stack until its size cause a stack-overflow.
Yes, that's exactly right, and something that's not often pointed out.
Btw, this is kind of relative strictness (when is one part of my program needed to answer demands on another part) is the kind of example for which old GHood can be helpful (once you get used to the display).
If you have Java on your machines, try installing GHood [1] (on hackage thanks to Hugo Pacheco), then things like
ghc -e ':m +Debug.Observe' -e 'printO $ observe "foldr" foldr (+) 0 [1..4] ' ghc -e ':m +Debug.Observe' -e "printO $ observe \"foldl'\" foldl' (+) 0 [1..4] " ghc -e ':m +Debug.Observe' -e 'printO $ observe "foldl" foldl (+) 0 [1..4] '
This was also among the examples on the GHood home page [2], so you could try the applet version instead, and in section 4.2 of the paper [3] (as a "well known strictness problem";-). Page and paper mention a few other similar examples and discuss some differences between static (which parts are needed at all) and dynamic strictness (which parts are needed when, relative to other demands).
Claus
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/GHood [2] http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~cr3/toolbox/haskell/GHood [3] http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~cr3/publications/GHood.html
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe