On 11 March 2010 18:19, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Aleksi Nurmi <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Now that I think of it, is there a compelling reason not to use GHC >> for native code compilation? It is stable and in active development. > > Yes: the longer the dependency chain for BitC, the harder it is to adopt. > >> Many recent languages such as Agda actually target Haskell... > > Research languages can afford to do that. BitC has been intended from > the beginning to end up a production language. > > I have a lot of respect for GHC, but having one strange new language > depend on a second strange language (in the eyes of the mainstream) > would be problematic, and it doesn't seem like we need that extra > dependency.
My window manager also depends on GHC and until the latest Debian packages of GHC doubled in size to about 300MB I did not really care. At this point I am considering alternatives as 300MB just to manage my windows seems somewhat bloated. I guess it's the same for BitC - if it depends on exotic language which is easily available it should not be of much problem. I happen to have GHC on my system but no trace of Mono - not to say it cannot be easily installed as it is also prepackaged in Debian. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
