| This puzzles me a bit. From talking with people at the | Haskell Workshop, I understood that GHCi would only be an | interactive compiler. | | The disadvantage with that is that compilation time might be | very long. But it was said that that is the price we pay. | | The only advantage I can see with interpreted code is the | fact that it can be compiled (or "processed") much faster. | Will GHCi reach speeds up to Hugs level? It'll definitely be mixed compiled/interpreted. No, compiling won't be nearly as fast as Hugs, but it will, we earnestly hope be "fast enough". Execution should be faster than Hugs; apart from anything else you'll get compiled libraries. | One bad thing with Hugs is that, for large systems, the | loading/processing time gets longer, and, worse, is repeated | every time one loads the system. This is especially bad when | using "runhugs". Hopefully GHCi will work better in that | case! Yes, a lot better. The idea is only to recompile things that have changed. | Another thing that worries me is that Hugs will die. Not | only because I like Hugs a lot, but also that it is yet | another Haskell system that is dying. I think that is a very reasonable concern. I certainly want to see Hugs alive and kicking. Simon