On 30 Dec 2007, at 10:54 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:39:51 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2007, at 10:14 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:49:16 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2007, at 5:01 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
By portable I mean: works on the same machine, with the same
OS, but with different Haskell implementation.
Ah, you can't. But, again, what are you trying to do? Re-
compiling your software for each implementation seems like a
perfectly reasonable thing to do, given the differences between
them.
Recompiling my software will not save a function created by the
software at runtime.
Which is a different problem than the one solved by dynamic
linking. Again, why do you want to do this?
I think they are not as different as you think they are.
I think they're very different --- dynamic libraries can be built by
running the compiler, whatever you're asking for can't.
More generally, dynamic libraries are supported by every production-
quality compiled language in existence; I know of no language that
can do what you're asking for.
I think, again, that what you really want is a reason to discredit
Haskell.
Twenty years ago, Haskell had a laundry list of features few other
languages had. Today, you'd be hard-pressed to find a compelling
feature Haskell has that other languages don't. But those features
are an integral part of Haskell's design, and very easy to use; in
other languages, just producing the syntax required to invoke them is
like kicking dead whales down the beach. (I know, I program `Higher
Order Perl' for a living. Usually, giving up on HO and settling for
OO is /easier/ in that language --- but using higher order functions
in Haskell is easier than either). But I don't imagine you're
particularly interested in hearing that.
jcc
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
