Looking for portable Haskell or Haskell like language
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install. I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try. I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable. -- frigidcode.com
Hugs98, or failing that, the original Hugs, will almost certainly
be easier to compile for your RHEL5 system, but do note that
it's not a compiler in the sense that it makes standalone binaries.
Given your constraints, it's probably the best choice.
Tommy
On Apr 26, 2013, at 22:21 , Christopher Howard
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
At Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:21:48 -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
Hugs is ANSI C, and it doesn’t really get more portable than that. However it is only an interpreter, if you want a compiler you might might want to try nhc98, which aims to be very portable as well http://www.haskell.org/nhc98/. The problem with both of these solutions (Hugs a bit less than nhc98) is that you won’t be able to enjoy the ecosystems that has grown in the recent years around GHC. But if you just want to write some standard Haskell programs, they should be OK. Francesco
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 21:21 -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
Silly question, but have you tried *building GHC from source*? Building GHC is non-trivial, but basically boils down to having an existing ghc that runs enough to bootstrap, right? So you can take a (quite old, sure, no problem) ghc out of the RHEL 5 repositories and use that to build a current GHC 7.6 say. That _would_ be linked against whatever library stack you have present, and you should be ok from there. AfC Sydney -- Andrew Frederick Cowie http://www.andrewcowie.com/ +61 4 1079 6725
On Saturday 27 April 2013, 19:18:35, Andrew Cowie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 21:21 -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
Silly question, but have you tried *building GHC from source*?
Building GHC is non-trivial, but basically boils down to having an existing ghc that runs enough to bootstrap, right? So you can take a (quite old, sure, no problem) ghc out of the RHEL 5 repositories and use that to build a current GHC 7.6 say.
It's not quite as convenient as that, since you need a new enough GHC to build 7.6 (not sure which version is required). So you'd probably need to build one or two intermediate GHCs from source, depending on what you can directly install. Building from source isn't so difficult, you need a gcc, you need to install happy and alex (sufficiently old versions for the start, install the newest versions before you build the final GHC), and of course a working GHC. ./configure --prefix=$HOME (or where you want to install GHC) make && make install You then have a lot of time to drink tea.
That _would_ be linked against whatever library stack you have present, and you should be ok from there.
If you are feeling brave, you can also bootstrap GHC. For operating systems that are already supported, it should not be too hard. Last time I tried on a fresh install of Debian, the process was to install the dependencies, and then something like this: sh configure make make install Disclaimer: this was with 7.4.1, which was a while ago. I don't remember if that's all there was to it. On 4/27/2013 7:12 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
On Saturday 27 April 2013, 19:18:35, Andrew Cowie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 21:21 -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install. Silly question, but have you tried *building GHC from source*?
Building GHC is non-trivial, but basically boils down to having an existing ghc that runs enough to bootstrap, right? So you can take a (quite old, sure, no problem) ghc out of the RHEL 5 repositories and use that to build a current GHC 7.6 say. It's not quite as convenient as that, since you need a new enough GHC to build 7.6 (not sure which version is required).
So you'd probably need to build one or two intermediate GHCs from source, depending on what you can directly install.
Building from source isn't so difficult, you need a gcc, you need to install happy and alex (sufficiently old versions for the start, install the newest versions before you build the final GHC), and of course a working GHC.
./configure --prefix=$HOME (or where you want to install GHC) make && make install
You then have a lot of time to drink tea.
That _would_ be linked against whatever library stack you have present, and you should be ok from there.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Have you considered installing on older version of GHC? Such as GHC
6.10.4 or GHC 6.8.3?
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_6_10_4
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_683
They won't have all the latest extensions.. but they still have more
features than any other alternative.
Also, once you have a version installed, you can, with enough
patience, upgrade to the latest version if you really need some
feature.
- jeremy
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Christopher Howard
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Christopher Howard:
I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable. Is the portability which worries you, or the age of your system?
Hugs (and Gofer before) are simply sufficiently old... I used them on Red Hat in one of my previous lives. Do you really need to compile your system from sources? There are binaries everywhere. If you want a *simpler* language, perhaps try Miranda? Also a quite ancient language... Or, perhaps a newer one, in some aspects simpler than Haskell (but far from any simplicity): Clean. Perhaps it might help to know what do you need it for... The best Jerzy Karczmarczuk
On 04/27/2013 08:36 AM, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Christopher Howard: Is the portability which worries you, or the age of your system?
Actually getting a successful build and installation would be great. Also, there are multiple systems I work with, both of which have ancient software, but unfortunately are not the same configuration. I often find software that builds on one, but not the other.
Hugs (and Gofer before) are simply sufficiently old... I used them on Red Hat in one of my previous lives. Do you really need to compile your system from sources?
I guess not, if I can get one to install successfully to a local (non-root) user account. As mentioned, GHC Linux binaries failed me here, because apparently the gnu libc version is too old. With most software, I generally have had more success installing from source than trying to work with pre-built.
There are binaries everywhere. If you want a *simpler* language, perhaps try Miranda? Also a quite ancient language...
Or, perhaps a newer one, in some aspects simpler than Haskell (but far from any simplicity): Clean.
To be clearer, I do not really want any language other than Haskell. I just imagined that a simpler language might have a simpler and more portable compiler.
Perhaps it might help to know what do you need it for...
In brief, I have access to some large super computer systems. Sadly, nobody in my academic or work circles seems to have the slightest interest in applying functional languages to parallel computing problems (C and Fortran seem to be the languages of choice.) So, I've been poking around with some functional languages, trying to see what I could get installed (without any admin assistance whatsoever) and how I might be able to use them with the MPI or even GPGPU infrastructure we have. But I keep running into problems, because the software infrastructure is quite ancient (for compatibility purposes, I'm told), or there are other mysterious configuration issues. -- frigidcode.com
On Apr 27, 2013, at 1:21 AM, Christopher Howard
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I successfully built and used OCaml 4.0.0 on a 32 bit RHEL 5 box a few months ago. https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Siraaj Khandkar .o. o.o ..o o.. .o. ..o .oo o.o .oo ..o ooo .o. .oo oo. ooo
I had similar work situation before. What I did was: install a CentOS
virtual machine on Windows at home (CentOS version should be compatible to
your RHEL5 version, and do not update it), then play with Haskell within
CentOS. Your executables will be runnable on RHEL5.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Siraaj Khandkar
On Apr 27, 2013, at 1:21 AM, Christopher Howard < christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I successfully built and used OCaml 4.0.0 on a 32 bit RHEL 5 box a few months ago.
https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Siraaj Khandkar .o. o.o ..o o.. .o. ..o .oo o.o .oo ..o ooo .o. .oo oo. ooo
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
I recently built a binary installer for GHC 7.6.3 to run on CentOS 5.9, which should be compatible with RHEL 5. It uses glibc 2.5, at least. I don't have a good place to host it long-term, but would be happy to make it available to you (or anyone else who's interested). Aaron On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Christopher Howard < christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 27/04/13 15:21, Christopher Howard wrote:
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
You can use GHC on RHEL 5 machines, it's just very tedious to set up. A blog post I wrote a while ago describes the process: http://twdkz.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/installing-ghc-7-0-3-and-the-haskell-p... I still use this, though now I have an extra step to build build GHC 7.4.2 atop of 7.0.3. Tim
I've got ghc working here on a centos 5.5 machine. But without root
privilege, I don't know how.
Perhaps you can use a virtual machine with centos 5.5 (you'd have root
access on this machine), install ghc on this machine, compile your programs
there, then transfer that on the first computer ?
2013/4/27 Christopher Howard
Hi. I've got this work situation where I've got to do all my work on /ancient/ RHEL5 systems, with funky software configurations, and no root privileges. I wanted to install GHC in my local account, but the gnu libc version is so old (2.5!) that I can't even get the binary packages to install.
I've had success installing some other simple functional languages (like CLISP) on these same systems, so I was wondering if there was perhaps another language very similar to Haskell (but presumably simpler) with a super portable compiler easily built from source, which I could try.
I'll admit -- I haven't tried the HUGS compiler for Haskell. The quick description didn't make it sound much more portable than GHC, but I guess I could try it if I heard some good reasons to think it would be more portable.
-- frigidcode.com
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
participants (13)
-
Aaron Tomb -
Andrew Cowie -
Christopher Howard -
Daniel Fischer -
David Virebayre -
Francesco Mazzoli -
Hong Yang -
Jeremy Shaw -
Jerzy Karczmarczuk -
Joe Quinn -
Siraaj Khandkar -
Tim Docker -
Tommy Thorn