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