I wrote:
> Doug Ransom wrote:
> > It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for writing
in a
> > functional language. The number of times C++ compilers have given out
on me
> > indicates that C++ is not suitable for writing anything as complicated
as a
> > C++ compiler.
[...]
> It seems to me that a compiler would be an ideal candidate for being
written
> in an imperative language. The number of times GHC has been too slow and
> memory-hungry for me indicates that Haskell is not suitable for writing
> anything as general-purpose as a compiler.
which spurred some people to respond in this way:
Tommy Thorn wrote:
> That's a fairly naive remark. I could write you a really slow and fat C++
compiler i
> C if you like. There are a number of reasons why it's too early judge.
For a
> stunning example, you should look at Niklas Rojemo's thesis about NHC.
Now there's a
> space-tight compiler (although slow).
>
> Having said all that, yes, predictable memory behavior is IMHO the biggest
problem of
> lazy language implementation these days.
which leads me to believe that some people are not careful readers, or lack
a sense of humor mixed with a healthy dose of perspective, or like to quote
others out of context, or enjoy picking on well-meaning posters who merely
like to shake the tree every once in a while. :)
Oh, and by the way, Tommy, that's a fairly naive remark. I could write you a
really fast and lean Haskell compiler in Haskell if you like. There are a
number of reasons why it's too early to judge. For a stunning example, you
should look at the GCC compiler. Now there's a fast compiler (although
space-hungry).
Having said all that, yes, correct program behavior is IMHO the biggest
problem of imperative language implementation these days.
--FAC
