By the way, I have some patches around that package Hugs as a native Chrome app (via NaCL), and has a working REPL console in the browser. It could use some love - integrating with HTML5 file API or such to save/load files, packaging up and releasing on Chrome store. I'm not likely to have time for that, but if anyone is interested please ping me and will hand it over. Christopher Allen ezt írta (időpont: 2016. ápr. 13., Sze, 18:41):

That's not the real reason and the errors aren't better.

On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Dan Burton wrote:

Presumably the reason for using hugs is friendlier error messages for new Haskellers, or something of the sort?

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, David Feuer wrote:

...

Apparently, Eric Meijer is now teaching a large class using Hugs, which leads to many of his students asking questions about it on StackOverflow. I therefore suggest that we change the status of Hugs on the website from "is no longer in development" to "has been maintained by Eric Meijer since 2015". I think we should also include on the website a statement to the effect that people seeking help using Hugs should contact Eric Meijer directly, and provide his email address to facilitate that. Obviously, he'll need full write access to the Hugs source repo to fulfill his duties as maintainer.

Yes, this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I really do think that pointing students to an unmaintained language implementation (regardless of the pedagogical reasons) has negative consequences for the functional programming community as a whole.

-- -- Dan Burton

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

https://twitter.com/headinthebox/status/652834731806052352 and in the thread:

This round of #FP101x we will use https://www.haskell.org/hugs/ instead of GHCi because it is not changing.

- Oleg Grenrus

On 13 Apr 2016, at 19:38, Dan Burton wrote:

Presumably the reason for using hugs is friendlier error messages for new Haskellers, or something of the sort?

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, David Feuer wrote: Apparently, Eric Meijer is now teaching a large class using Hugs, which leads to many of his students asking questions about it on StackOverflow. I therefore suggest that we change the status of Hugs on the website from "is no longer in development" to "has been maintained by Eric Meijer since 2015". I think we should also include on the website a statement to the effect that people seeking help using Hugs should contact Eric Meijer directly, and provide his email address to facilitate that. Obviously, he'll need full write access to the Hugs source repo to fulfill his duties as maintainer.

Yes, this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I really do think that pointing students to an unmaintained language implementation (regardless of the pedagogical reasons) has negative consequences for the functional programming community as a whole.

-- -- Dan Burton _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Giacomo Tesio writes:

Is this a language issue? I don't think so... but apparently, despite the abundance of language hackers in the Haskell community, nobody still tried to prove that an interpreter for the core Haskell language can be written in a reasonable amount of C code.

What is the value of using C as an implementation language [1]? Shouldn't there be intrinsic value in a self-hosted implementation? -- с уважениeм / respectfully, Косырев Сергей -- 1. ..resource efficiency aside..

The value of C as an implementation language is it's portability. Also usage as embedded language in many applications is easier with C. Self hosting is valuable as a proof that a compiler (and the compiled language) can be used for a complex real world program. But it does not help with portability. Giacomo 2016-04-20 20:30 GMT+02:00 Karel Gardas :

On 04/20/16 07:15 PM, Kosyrev Serge wrote:

...

Giacomo Tesio writes:

...

Is this a language issue? I don't think so... but apparently, despite the abundance of language hackers in the Haskell community, nobody still tried to prove that an interpreter for the core Haskell language can be written in a reasonable amount of C code.

What is the value of using C as an implementation language [1]?

Some OSes are C-centric so...

Shouldn't there be intrinsic value in a self-hosted implementation?

...

...bootstraping Haskell from Haskell raises some concerns. At least IIRC the situation in OpenBSD -- if I understand this correctly.

Karel

2016-04-20 19:52 GMT+02:00 Roman Cheplyaka :

On 04/20/2016 08:06 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

...

Is this a language issue? I don't think so... but apparently, despite the abundance of language hackers in the Haskell community, nobody still tried to prove that an interpreter for the core Haskell language can be written in a reasonable amount of C code.

You are contradicting yourself. Mark P Jones and other "language hackers" who contributed to Hugs have already proven that.

No contradiction, you are just misreading the statement: P. Jones proved that for Haskell98. For Haskell2010, it's still to be proved.

That no-one seems to be willing to maintain Hugs may indicate that there aren't as many use cases as you claim.

Maybe. But, as always in engineering, it's a matter of economics.

Thus, to my money (and admittedly for my own use cases), if somebody

...

renew the interest around a simpler Haskell implementation, he's going to have a really *positive *effect.

Would you put your money where your mouth is? I'm sure you would find someone who could maintain and improve Hugs for you.

Sure, give me an estimate of the cost! I will seriously evaluate the investment. The requirements of the update are: - support Haskell2010 without any extension - simple and portable C code, possibly C99 but at least GCC - statically linked (possibly newlib, but I can replace the libc later) Actually to evaluate the RoI I need some statistics about the Hackage packages that such renewed Hugs would be able to run: - how many packages in Hackage are currently maintained? how many of them did exist 2 years ago? how many packages were maintained 2 years ago? - how many maintained packages conform to Haskell2010 without using any extension? - how many maintained packages use FFI (requiring libraries that should be linked with Hugs too)? - could such interpreter run cabal? Giacomo