Some weeks ago, I mirrored the hugs repo to github. (https://github.com/fuzxxl/Hugs) This was, when I found out, that the last commit was about 2 years ago. Also, since some of the dependencies moved, I was unable to build hugs. Now my question is: Is Hugs dead? What's the status of development of hugs? Yours, Robert Clausecker
Strong recommendation is to use the Haskell Platform and GHC as your
development base, unless you have very specific reasons to use Hugs or
one of the other compilers.
-- Don
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Robert Clausecker
Some weeks ago, I mirrored the hugs repo to github. (https://github.com/fuzxxl/Hugs) This was, when I found out, that the last commit was about 2 years ago. Also, since some of the dependencies moved, I was unable to build hugs.
Now my question is: Is Hugs dead? What's the status of development of hugs?
Yours, Robert Clausecker
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
By the way, I'd like to use hugs extensively as sysadmin's universal scripting language. I think, it could be a great killer feature. But as far as I know, it doesn't have any facilities to run external programs and process their stdout, stderr end exit code. Hugs is much more suitable for the task then ghc because of its compactness and portability. And some people think that haskell code is easier to maintain than shell scripts, perl or even python. -- Best regards Evgeny Tarasov 22.04.2011 18:16, Robert Clausecker пишет:
Some weeks ago, I mirrored the hugs repo to github. (https://github.com/fuzxxl/Hugs) This was, when I found out, that the last commit was about 2 years ago. Also, since some of the dependencies moved, I was unable to build hugs.
Now my question is: Is Hugs dead? What's the status of development of hugs?
Yours, Robert Clausecker
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Evgeny Tarasov wrote:
By the way, I'd like to use hugs extensively as sysadmin's universal scripting language.
Hugs is better in this respect because it starts much faster than runghc.
I think, it could be a great killer feature. But as far as I know, it doesn't have any facilities to run external programs and process their stdout, stderr end exit code.
Hugs is much more suitable for the task then ghc because of its compactness and portability. And some people think that haskell code is easier to maintain than shell scripts, perl or even python.
For GHC-6.0 and GHC-6.2, that is before runInteractiveProcess, we had the package: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/shell-pipe Maybe this can be used for Hugs.
On 4/22/11 8:16 AM, Robert Clausecker wrote:
Some weeks ago, I mirrored the hugs repo to github. (https://github.com/fuzxxl/Hugs) This was, when I found out, that the last commit was about 2 years ago. Also, since some of the dependencies moved, I was unable to build hugs.
Now my question is: Is Hugs dead? What's the status of development of hugs?
Alas, Hugs appears to be well and truly dead. Sept2006 seems to be the last official release, and the bugs I've posted for Cabal/cabal-install support seem to have a priority hovering around _|_. You can get an unofficial Feb2009 release from the corehugs[1] project that forked off in 2008. Unfortunately corehugs seems to be dead too (along with the Yhc it was forked to work with). Tis a shame to see all those projects go. It'd be nice to have a simple, portable Haskell interpreter for shell scripting, embedded machines, etc. [1] http://code.google.com/p/corehugs/ -- Live well, ~wren
participants (6)
-
Bryan O'Sullivan -
Don Stewart -
Evgeny Tarasov -
Henning Thielemann -
Robert Clausecker -
wren ng thornton