John, please update the section "All is not well in jhc-land" because now things are better isn´t?
2009/2/21 John Meacham <j...@repetae.net> > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > > Hello John, > > > > Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote: > > > > > Heh. He probably meant something more like "jhc is not a production > > > compiler" which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of > > > substantial size or that require many extensions, jhc falls somewhat > > > short. It is getting better though. Of course, help is always > > > appreciated. :) > > > > what is "substantial size"? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e. > > probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens > > of thousands LOCs? > > Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program is, the > more likely it is to depend on some library that depends on a ghc > extension. However, base is almost 10000 lines and jhc can compile that > into a library without too much effort nowadays, so it might scale. > If you try and find it fails, then please submit a bug report to > j...@haskell.org. Too many bugs go unreported I find. > > If the haskell code has an interface that is strict and unboxable (i.e. > only unboxable values passed, such as a video codec passing floats might > be) then compiling it with jhc and foreign exporting the functions then > foreign importing them into ghc for the bulk of the program would > probably work. Probably not worth the effort, but could be an > interesting experiment. > > JOhn > > -- > John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ > _______________________________________________ > 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