"D. Tweed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Don Syme wrote: > > > going to provide. Given the general complexity of GHC, the longish > > compile times and the reliance of the GHC library implementation on C > > and C libraries in so many places I decided to implement a simpler > > language from scratch. I like the idea that a .NET compiler should be > > under 10K lines of code if at all possible, as is the case for F#. > > Idle curiosity: which aspects of the Haskell language are the ones that > make it complicated -- e.g., long-time stuff like lazy evaluation, > typeclasses & inferrence, etc or newer stuff like functional dependencies, > etc or something else entirely -- and do they only make it complicated in > the context of the .NET architecture or in any implementation? (I'm just > interested in that there's little chance of Haskell becoming more > widespread if it's daunting enough to dissuade implementors.)
I think, the probelm is .NET, not Haskell. .NET just doesn't deliver on its promise (= marketing hype) of language neutrality. The problem is that .NET is language neutral only as long as all languages are sufficiently close to C#. Not just Haskell, but widely used languages like C++ run into this problem, too (see .NET's Managed C++). Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
