RE: Re: GHC for .NET?

> I've heard complaints about the unsuitability of the Java VM for lazy 
> functional languages. I wonder if the CLR also has issues for this?

The CLR has some technical features that make it more attractive than
the JVM, e.g. pointer-based unsafe code (useful for some closure
representations), tailcalls, generics, light-weight code generation (the
latter can be used for mixed interpretation/compilation with code
reclamation).

But in the end it will depends on what your goals are - you will
probably take a performance hit, but you will get a lot of benefits,
e.g. loads of great libraries and tools.  I think a variant of Haskell
could find a niche in the context of either Java or .NET.

Cheers
Don


-----Original Message-----
From: haskell-cafe-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ashley Yakeley
Sent: 04 January 2005 01:14
To: haskell-cafe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Re: GHC for .NET?

In article 
<5DCA48FADB33FF4D8C32A164DF24F2B0023C12C0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ft.com>,
 "Don Syme" <dsyme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We still frequently talk about doing either Haskell.NET or a strict
> language much closer to Haskell (perhaps as a stepping stone to doing
> Haskell).  But neither are currently active projects.

I've heard complaints about the unsuitability of the Java VM for lazy 
functional languages. I wonder if the CLR also has issues for this?

-- 
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe