Le Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:49:01 -0500 (EST), citb@lavabit.com a écrit :
What would be the point in doing so?
Well, I don't know. Would it save some time? Why bother with a core language?
The compilation process might be slightly faster, but I guess it wouldn't be much noticeable. Also I guess having a core language eases porting to new architectures, you "just" have to port a simple core language rather than porting a complex language. The semantics of the core language is also rather simple, so you can use it to explain and understand how it works, then for the high level part, you can give a semantics by compilation to the core language. Finally, adding a new feature seems easier and less error prone if you have to translate it into the core language rather than compiling it directly. I never studied the Haskell compiler so I do not know the details, but I think that having a core language is a good idea. It is also good to have some VM to porting purposes. If you have N source languages and M target machines, by providing N+M stuff, you get N×M compilers !
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe