On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 10:38 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello Albert, > > Sunday, April 29, 2007, 2:51:24 AM, you wrote: > > >> Is it just me who thinks this is a silly idea? Why should GHC include a > >> C++ compiler? > > > .NET literates, will benefit from the many libraries available in .NET. > > Can we also include a .NET runtime, a .NET documentation suite, all .NET > > you are lame.
Hia Bulat, It's really much better to criticise ideas rather than people personally, though I do understand that Albert was making a joke at your expense. In that situation its much better to try and ignore it rather than flaming. We do want to keep the various Haskell mailing lists civil :-) > java/c# libs can't be used with current ghc, so 99% of > libs we may need are written in c/c++. making porting these lubs as > hard as possible and then heroically rewrite them in pure haskell is > one way, good for PhD and other pseudo-scientific activity. building > bridges to the world of existing software is the way to the real > haskell usage in big projects Making it possible to use Haskell in mixed language projects with C++ and Java is obviously a good thing, but it's not really a scalable solution to distribute them all together. We should look at how to improve cabal+ghc to make it easier to use them as a component of a larger system. One example of this would be not requiring that ghc is used to do a final link, we should be able to make static libs and then link them using ordinary gcc. Duncan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
