> Any particular reason for generating Java rather than JVM bytecode?
> Does it make a difference?
Yes, we make *heavy* use of innerclasses and exceptions. So we are more than
happy to leave the dirty work to the Java compiler. (We are however
currently working on an "inner classes lifter" so tha
Simon said:
> GHC has a Java back end in development. You say ghc -J Foo.hs to produce
> Foo.java.
Any particular reason for generating Java rather than JVM bytecode?
Does it make a difference?
Dr Ian Stark
At 2:07 pm +0200 24/5/00, Artur Zawlocki wrote:
>Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>>
>> Wed, 24 May 2000 01:24:57 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>>
>> > Performance will not be great. More like Hugs than GHC.
>>
>> Is this because of lack of optimization, or is it inhe
For MLj the answers so far as I remember are:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> To those of you who are working on implementations:
> How do you implement
>
> 1) tail recursion
You can only do so much. The Java VM has a goto instruction but you
can't jump from one virtual method to another. Things
Hi Thomas,
Some quick answers in addition to Nigel's
> 1) tail recursion
We use the usual "trampoline" trick, with a little top-level interpretative
loop. Using the trick has a pleasant side effect that we can pass values on
the arguments stack as well.
> 2) polymorphism
All type informations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> To those of you who are working on implementations:
> How do you implement
>
> 1) tail recursion
> 2) polymorphism
> 3) closures & eval (i.e., laziness)
One approach worth mentioning is described in
David Wakeling: "Compiling lazy functional programs for the Java Virt
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>
> Wed, 24 May 2000 01:24:57 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > Performance will not be great. More like Hugs than GHC.
>
> Is this because of lack of optimization, or is it inherent in using
> Java bytecode?
I guess the poor performan
At 1:40 pm +0200 24/5/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>To those of you who are working on implementations:
>How do you implement
Brief answers:
>1) tail recursion
return to an evaluation loop (called "trampoline" by some?)
>2) polymorphism
Object
>3) closures & eval (i.e., laziness)
Local (ano
To those of you who are working on implementations:
How do you implement
1) tail recursion
2) polymorphism
3) closures & eval (i.e., laziness)
Thanks,
--Thomas Johnsson
Wed, 24 May 2000 01:24:57 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Performance will not be great. More like Hugs than GHC.
Is this because of lack of optimization, or is it inherent in using
Java bytecode?
--
__("
Dear fellow Haskellers and Haskellettes,
If you want to write Applets in Haskell there is no need to *compile*
Haskell to Java. A better option is probably to use Lambada, which gives you
a bidirectional interface between Haskell and Java. In other words with
Lambada you can call Java from Haskel
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were a Haskell compiler backend
> that produced Java bytecode? Then I could write applets
> in my favourite language, compile them, put them on my web page,
> and everyone could execute them in their browser...
>
> Seriously, is there any
. More like Hugs than
> GHC.
>
> Simon
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: Johannes Waldmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> | Sent: 24 May 2000 09:20
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Subject: Haskell -> Java bytecode?
> |
> |
> | Wouldn't it be nice if there
> I would pose a different question: could you tell us *what kind
> of applets* would you like to write in a pure lazy language, why
> it would be more pleasant than Java (or Tcl/Tk, or ...)
What applets do I want? They should illustrate concepts
that we (*) teach in basic theoretical computer sc
Johannes Waldmann:
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were a Haskell compiler backend
> that produced Java bytecode? Then I could write applets
> in my favourite language, compile them, put them on my web page,
> and everyone could execute them in their browser...
>
> Seriously, is there any work in
s than
GHC.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Johannes Waldmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: 24 May 2000 09:20
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Haskell -> Java bytecode?
|
|
| Wouldn't it be nice if there were a Haskell compiler backend
| that produced Java bytecode?
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a Haskell compiler backend
that produced Java bytecode? Then I could write applets
in my favourite language, compile them, put them on my web page,
and everyone could execute them in their browser...
Seriously, is there any work in that direction?
Surely someone
17 matches
Mail list logo
