I have used GHC on a 32 bit NUC running Ubuntu, and it is a bit slow compiling. Run time performance was ok for my app IO app. I prefer a MinnowBoardMax running Ubuntu. The 64 bit dual core performs well much better, reasonable compile times. Just don’t expect it to run like an I5/7 Quad core. It is more like $150 + a Drive, so about $200. But it it works well. On Feb 14, 2015, at 1:45 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote:

The spec sheet says MicroPython runs on bare metal on the PyBoard. It would be a lot of effort to make GHCi or even Hugs/Gofer do the same.

As the price point for the PyBoard is the same as Raspberry PI, such an effort would perhaps be headstrong rather than sensible.

On 14 February 2015 at 04:55, Mike Meyer wrote:

...

I asked about running GHCI on something like the Arduino due, and was told that there wasn't enough CPU on it for that.

How about getting it running on something like a PyBoard? http://www.adafruit.com/products/2390

_______________________________________________ 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

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Mike Meyer wrote:

...

How about getting it running on something like a PyBoard? http://www.adafruit.com/products/2390 For a very similar price (but yes much large physical size) you can get a Beagle Bone Black which is capable of running a full Linux OS. I run Debian on mine and have successfully cross-compiled from my linux-amd64 machine to linux-armhf binaries that run on the BBB.

And presumably, weight. I work with rc aircraft - and like the small scale ones. I won't say every gram counts, but every ounce certainly does. So while I appreciate such pointers (though if I get something like that, I'll probably go wit the new Raspberry Pi 2, as I'm already using the older one for some projects), they don't help that much for my higher - literally - goals.

On 02/16/15 10:39 AM, Karel Gardas wrote:

If you insist on GHCi, then search for Cortex-Ax which is able to run Linux and which fulfill your weight reqs. For example Gumstick or Variscite makes a lot of nice SOMs, perhaps some of them is applicable for your app?

Also have a look at http://www.friendlyarm.net/ -- their TinyXXXX modules are really close to what you proposed in PyBoard and still able to run Linux + GHCi. Karel

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Vladimir Komendantskiy < komendantsky@gmail.com> wrote:

Yet I wonder why do you have a requirement to run code in the interpreter on an automnomous vehicle? Wouldn't compiled code run more efficiently and require less resources?

Because the ability to change the programming in the field is important. A lot of the configuration is pure functions that get iterated over the state to produce new state, and expressing those in Haskell is where I think this can win. Ok, there'd be an advantage to writing it in Haskell in the first place, but that's a hard sell. On the other hand, replacing a text file in INI or XML or YAML or some ad-hoc format that specifies what is, when all is said and done, a pure function that takes the state of the hardware as input with an actual Haskell function, that I think I can sell.