#3595: The forefathers of Haskell ...
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: JohnD | Owner:
Type: proposal | Status: new
Priority: normal | Component: Build System
Version: | Severity: normal
Keywords: | Testcase:
Os: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Unknown/Multiple
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
17 October 2009
I am something of a new face. I wish to introduce myself by doing what I
can to make a contribution and so I am making a proposal. It would make
sense before undertaking the project to determine whether or not it makes
any sense with those who are better acquainted with Haskell and more
specifically GHC, and are closer to the problem.
Haskell is an expressive language. GHC is needed to build GHC as it is.
Why not create a build system that does not rely on shell scripts and make
files? We would have all the benefits of a type safe language, type
inference and the like. It seems to me that the build system is a weak
link. Since when is the software developer's time unimportant? Strike
that, it makes me sound like I was born yesterday. :-)
At one time the lack of a type system would have been regarded as an
asset, less bureaucracy. Haskell has type inference. It wouldn't be a
burden, it would be an asset. You get to find out if the build system is
broken without having to learn the hard way and having wasted hours or
days of your precious time on something that is silly. GHC produces better
error messages and is better at catching mistakes. It furthermore has an
interpreter. From a theoretical point of view that's everything. What came
first the chicken or the egg? What came first was the interpreter, then
came the chicken. So technically it isn't an interpreter--it's a
translator! He he.
Unix/GNU is a mature product. It's ancient as in stone age, but mature.
Some things might be missed. I recently installed Windows Vista on my
computer. As usual there is what they got wrong, but also all the things
they got right. It will take time to get used to it. So I suppose I can
relate to those who might oppose change. I made a investment becoming
familiar with Windows XP. It was comfortable. Equally many of you are
vested in the old way of doing things. It has been around for so long that
no one questions it.
What exactly is unique about make files that you can't do in any other
language? Well, the syntax lends itself to the task. Why couldn't Prolog
be used? With Prolog you don't always have an interactive environment. The
forefathers of Haskell weren't short sited and understood the value of
having both a compiler and interactive environment. Is it merely
convenience and something that aids in debugging? or is there more to it?
There is the Curry language which is based on Haskell and it is my
understanding that some of the features of the Curry language are now GHC
extensions. Make files are a poor man's Prolog whereas Prolog is the tool
of aristocrats.
If you take an objective look at the stone age tools, you will see
something grotesque. It has to be survival of the fittest. It just isn't
fit. It shouldn't survive. It would be wrong for it to survive. All that
Haskell represents is what needs to survive.
--
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3595>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
