[Haskell-cafe] Re: Good article on why implementing a functional

Monique Monteiro monique.louise at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 12:52:58 EDT 2007

I think that using an existing back end of an optimizing compiler such
as GHC is  more promising than targetting Java, C# or other
imperative/OO language.  GHC already does a lot of work to achieve a
good performance.  So, if you generate Java code, you'd have to do a
lot of work to get good performance in the final code, 'cause of the
huge semantic gap between Haskell and Java. Also, you don't have any
control on the JVM internals, such as GC and other things. However, if
you want portability or easy access to object-oriented APIs,
generating Java code (or .NET code, for interoperability with other
languages) should be your choice.



> Gentlefolk:
> Help.  I need support for a technical argument: why going to an intermediate
> form for an existing functional back end like Haskell really, truly is
> better for implementing a functional language than is going to an
> intermediate form like the Java intermediate form and re-doing all the
> various specialized mechanism needed to support a true lazy functional
> language.  In other words, I need a pithy paper or book chapter that will
> convince someone unfamiliar with functional languages that Functional Back
> Ends Really Are Different --- no, Really Truly Different.  Something on the
> order of Why Functional Programming Matters, but for the implementor of the
> language, not the programmer.
> Any pointers to a good article or book chapter that might help?  I keep
> saying that this bookkeeping is a BIG task, but they keep saying they know
> they can "handle" it.  Pithy comments?  Staff year estimates?  Horror
> stories?
> Thanks, anyone.
> Dave Barton

Monique Monteiro, MSc
MCP .NET Framework 2.0 / SCJP / IBM OOAD
Project Manager
Recife Microsoft Innovation Center
+55 81 34198137
monique at qualiti.com.br
MSN: monique_louise at msn.com

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list