On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:53:26PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I _really_ appreciate the
> work you are putting in to making jhc faster. what I meant to say is
> that I know parts of jhc are _already_ obfuscated, but that as far as
> haskell compilers go, it's not as bad as it could be. :)
Oh, I should also say that I mean no disrespect to the GHC developers,
the only reason I can use simple strictness annotations instead of
explicit unboxed types is their sweet strictness analyzer, the only
reason I can use more readable 'do' syntax rather than `thenM` style
monadic code is their sweet implementation of classes. GHC is great
code and the papers that came out of its implementation were the
inspiration for most parts of jhc. :)
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
jhc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/jhc
