Re: [9fans] nice quote

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1895 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote:

> Well I can think of 3 operating systems written in Haskell now.  One was an
>> executable specification for validating a secure L4 implementation.  One
>> is
>> hOp, and then there's also House, based on hOp.
>>
>
> Keep in mind that House and hOp both used the ghc runtime (written in C) as
> a base.  I would argue that this is most of the "OS". The seL4 spec is more
> like an operating system simulation than an operating system (or more
> accurately it is a spec that can be executed).
>

I suppose this is true, though I thought GHC's runtime was still mostly
Haskell. (haven't looked, but one would think porting GHC would be a lot
simpler if it was in all C).


>
> I'm not familiar with the other projects you mention.  Thank you,
> I'll check em out...
>
>  I've been writing a good bit of Haskell these days at work as well, mainly
>> due to the fact that it's possible to write some fairly sophisticated code
>> quickly, and even get pretty darned good performance out of it.
>>
>
> I'm a big fan.  Just want to make sure the hype isn't overblown.


Oh I agree with your point of view.  I even write some code in C, and make
Haskell bindings for it still today when Haskell seems like too much of a
pain to use (like a ring buffer implementation I did).

I'm a big fan of multi-paradigm programming.  I've got Erlang calling
Haskell and C++ in a system we actually deploy at work.  Pick the weapon
that's easiest to express the algorithms you need correctly in, and *then*
measure performance to make sure everything is still ok.

I do this for the same reasons people say C makes assembly mostly obsolete.
 Why work the low level stuff if the heavy lifting can be done for you in
advance.

Dave


>
>
> Tim Newsham
> http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2895 bytes --]