ANNOUNCE: GHC version 6.6.1

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at
Sun Apr 29 12:00:56 EDT 2007

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 10:38 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Albert,
> Sunday, April 29, 2007, 2:51:24 AM, you wrote:
> >> Is it just me who thinks this is a silly idea? Why should GHC include a
> >> C++ compiler?
> > .NET literates, will benefit from the many libraries available in .NET.
> > Can we also include a .NET runtime, a .NET documentation suite, all .NET
> you are lame.

Hia Bulat,

It's really much better to criticise ideas rather than people
personally, though I do understand that Albert was making a joke at your
expense. In that situation its much better to try and ignore it rather
than flaming. We do want to keep the various Haskell mailing lists
civil :-)

> java/c# libs can't be used with current ghc, so 99% of
> libs we may need are written in c/c++. making porting these lubs as
> hard as possible and then heroically rewrite them in pure haskell is
> one way, good for PhD and other pseudo-scientific activity. building
> bridges to the world of existing software is the way to the real
> haskell usage in big projects

Making it possible to use Haskell in mixed language projects with C++
and Java is obviously a good thing, but it's not really a scalable
solution to distribute them all together. We should look at how to
improve cabal+ghc to make it easier to use them as a component of a
larger system. One example of this would be not requiring that ghc is
used to do a final link, we should be able to make static libs and then
link them using ordinary gcc.


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list