FFT wrote:
John Dorsey wrote:
> Once it's installed and working, GHC's a very decent compiler.
My general null hypothesis is, as Alec Baldwin put it, that a loser is
a loser, or a buggy project is buggy.
If GHC is robust overall (which I'm yet to find out), why is the
installation so broken?
Part of the problem is that GHC 6.6 is the last version that supported
bootstrapping. Some of the changes in 6.8 broke that, and so the longer
it goes the harder bootstrapping/installation becomes. It's a major bug
that many people would like fixed; I don't know the details, but I'm
sure the GHC mailing lists[1] or #ghc would have more to say about it.
There are also some issues about libeditline which is used for the
interactive debugger, and has a lot to do with Linux vs BSD nonsense.
Once these two issues are dealt with, the rest is smooth sailing. As the
flagship Haskell compiler a lot of work has been invested in
optimizations and the general running of GHC. Installation is less
glorious work, so less academic and corporate investment has been paid
to that part of things.
Since most of the community already has a GHC installed, the
bootstrapping issue isn't devastating to those already in the loop.
Consequently, a lot of work has been done on making the post-compiler
development cycle more robust with projects like Cabal, Hackage,
cabal-install, and the Haskell Platform. These projects are still under
rapid development, but they are fairly stable and they make it very
friendly to install libraries--- which greatly speeds up development.
[1]
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/introduction-GHC.html#mailing-lists-GHC
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
