At Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:21:00 -0200,
Maurício wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH escreveu:
On Oct 21, 2007, at 14:40 , Maurí cio wrote:
I like Haskell, and use it as my main
language. However, compiling a Haskell program
usually takes a lot of memory and CPU.
Last night I was
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:05 -0700, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
I like Haskell, and use it as my main
language. However, compiling a Haskell program
usually takes a lot of memory and CPU.
Last night I was running top, and noticed cc1 consuming 101MB of RAM
:) I have also seen ar (the thing
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Maurício wrote:
Of course. But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
According to The History of Haskell
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/History_of_Haskell
(early versions of) Haskell could be used on such machines.
On Oct 21, 2007, at 15:21 , Maurí cio wrote:
Of course. But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
It's kinda surprising to me how many people think that just because
current/modern implementations of things use memory wastefully, this
is somehow mandatory. When
On Oct 21, 2007, at 15:31 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mauricio writes:
... But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
It seems you decided to ignore my message. OK.
Whoa there! Why assume malice? I got both his quoted response and
your message at about the same time,
On Oct 21, 2007, at 21:31 , Maurí cio wrote:
Anyway, what I would like would be a theoretical
answer. Is there something fundamentally diferent
between a C compiler and a Haskell one that makes
the former fits into 30Kb but not the other? If
I am not sure *modern* C would have fit into 30KB.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:02:25PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 21, 2007, at 21:31 , Maurí cio wrote:
Anyway, what I would like would be a theoretical
answer. Is there something fundamentally diferent
between a C compiler and a Haskell one that makes
the former fits into 30Kb
