[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original observation was that the compiler seems archaic. When
asked, I gave some general comments. What I should have just said was
that it was to much like a C compiler. Which, no matter how neat you
think it is, is archaic.
Hmmm, using the number of files generated from a source program as a measure
of the "coolness" of a programming language or its compiler is extremely
strange. There's nothing I could care less about if the language itself
fulfills my needs. Do you care about the strange intermediate files
VisualStudio produces? The contents of you CVS or .svn subdirectories?
I'm quite happy being able to ignore these things...
When I use javac every file that is created is necessary for the
application to run. This can't be said of the ghc compiler. Having an
excuse that this is way the C compiler does it or that this is the way
its always been done is to poor of a reason to even argue against. If a
file isn't needed then it shouldn't be left there.
Using Java class files as a "good" example is strange again: Java *does*
inline code, namely primitive constants, without leaving any traces of that
fact in the class file. That's part of the reason why every recompilation
checker for Java can only do an approximate job without actually *doing*
the compilation. GHC handles this much better.
Cheers,
S.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
