At 00.33 -0700 0-09-11, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>| How about Hugs' *extremely* fast compilation time? (Which is
>| the main reason for me (and many others) to use Hugs.)
>
>It won't be as fast as Hugs, but it will be much much faster than GHC.
>No figures yet, though. Getting it 'fast enough' is probably the major
>risk area.
Why not making two systems, a GHCI general slimmed down purpose
compiler/interpreter with wider portability, and a research GHC or GHCI,
which can be allowed to be slow and machine specific for the tradeoff of
containing the latest stuff computer scientist researchers are interested
in.
I think that GHCI passing over machine specific assembler code will really
kill off its widespread use, and it will hurt Haskell taking off as a
general purpose programming language. The group { C++, Java, Haskell }
would be a really nice suite for general purpose programming, if one can
pick and choose from the their relative strengths at need.
Hans Aberg
