Duncan Coutts wrote:
Is it just me who thinks this is a silly idea? Why should GHC include a C++ compiler?
I'm afraid it's just you. Like that someone who has indicated interest in haskell-c++ integration, I am interested in the prospect of mixing haskell with .NET languages, and not to mention that everyone, not just .NET literates, will benefit from the many libraries available in .NET. Can we also include a .NET runtime, a .NET documentation suite, all .NET libraries, a C# compiler, a VB compiler, and an F# compiler in a future GHC package for Windows? In fact also the corresponding Mono suite in the Linux case? Yes, I understand that a bridge between GHC and .NET does not exist yet, but consider this. In the spirit of "everyone is invited to help!" whenever there is a demand and not yet a supply in the Haskell community, we should encourage everyone to help add this missing bridge, and what better way is there if not ship a complete .NET suite in GHC so all interested parties can hack or test right away! And since this requires hacking the source code of GHC, wouldn't it be nice if the binary tarball also included the source tree? And also darcs since we will be crazy pushing and pulling?
I am not done yet. An ideal of .NET, at least for frontline developers if not for corporate Microsoft, is to be portable throughout Windows, Linux (via Mono for example), BSDs, MacOS, Solaris,... At present let's say just Windows and Linux in practice. Someone on Windows Vista without Linux will not be able to test out the bridge under construction on Linux. Someone on Linux without Windows Vista will not be able to test out the bridge under construction on Windows Vista. This is a sorry state of affair. To help developers and testers (and remember "everyone is invited to help!"), I have this bright idea: The GHC binary for Vista should include Linux, and the GHC binary for Linux should include Vista! (The GHC binary for MacOS should include both Linux and Vista!)
The last suggestion raises licensing issues, I am aware. We can't give away Vista just like that. We have to distribute it legally. The GHC team should extend itself (e.g., hire me!) to set up a lightweight e-Commerce company, authorized by Microsoft to sell Vista licences and releases. Then it can legally distribute GHC+Vista packages. (Of course you will have to pay, and the payment will find its way to Microsoft.) Collaboration with MSDN is also possible. This opens up a whole new dimension where no one has gone before! Just look at IBM: "We don't sell products, we sell services" brought them great success, in fact brought them out of great crisis into great success. If the GHC team also goes "we don't release compilers, we release complete platforms", the prospect is beyond imagination and its profoundness beyond expression.
How should I file this to the bug track? Should I file one monolithic report containing the whole shebang above? Or should I re-factor it into a million piecemeals and file each individually?
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
