You also need an accomplice web server to host the JS file containing the JavaScript for the web worker to run. I don't see how you can "fork" threads without such support.
On 13 November 2012 20:53, Luite Stegeman <stege...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Does/can cabal-install support GHCJS? I suppose that's a minor advantage of >> extending GHC itself; you get cabal support almost for free. > > Yes. There are two GHCJS installation options. One is the standalone > option that includes wrappers for cabal and ghc-pkg. You use > `ghcjs-cabal` to install packages, see the result with `ghcjs-pkg > list`. The standalone compiler can be installed with cabal-install, > but it does require you to run `ghcjs-boot` in a configured GHC source > tree, to install the core libraries (ghc-prim, base, integer-gmp). > > The alternative is the integrated compiler, where you completely > replace your existing GHC with one that can output Javascript. You > don't get separate package databases this way. > >> How big are the JS files generated with either the new or the old code >> generator? I recall there was a HS -> JS effort out there that generated >> huge JS files. UHC's output is relatively compact and doesn't grow as fast >> with bigger programs. > > Relatively big for the new generator because I haven't focused on this > yet. The generated code has lots of redundant assignments that can be > weeded out later with a dataflow analysis pass. The old generator is a > bit more compact (similar to haste compiler). Both versions have a > function-level linker that only includes functions that are actually > used. > >> WebWorkers is quite limited indeed. I'm not yet sure how the serialisation >> might complicate matters, but it seems that WebWorkers is only really a >> possible backend for `fork`, and not `forkIO`. > > For one, you cannot serialize closures, so it will probably be similar > to the restrictions in Cloud Haskell in that you can only call > top-level things on the other side (Unless you don't use Javascript > closures for your Haskell closures, the new GHCJS generator can > actually move closures to a WebWorker, at least in theory, it's not > yet implemented) > > luite > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users