12 ms·

Every native compiler does this. There is nothing magical about it. Obviously the platform has to be supported. That's why i asked what the platform is. The

Every native compiler does this. There is nothing magical about it. Obviously the platform has to be supported. That's why i asked what the platform is. The idea that you are the only person running a system is absurd. Even the most obscure platforms have thousands of active users. Your hypothetical can not be worked with, because it is a concrete question. Is your platform supported or not. Very simple. And again, if you want to have it generate C, then do so.

jjnoakes 10y ago
You think I haven't tried using Haskell on my platform? It isn't supported and it doesn't work. So you misrepresented things. I mean why would my first post be "Boy I wish I could use Haskell on my platform" if... I could use Haskell on my platform? Now I could put a ton of effort into it... for each platform... but I don't have that kind of time to maintain Haskell for N platforms. It would be much easier to compile via portable C or C++ that was human readable. But I would expect, since Haskell has lazy evaluation and a GC, that there is almost no way to map to readable C or C++. Thunks flying around, continuations, ...
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >You think I haven't tried using Haskell on my platform? Correct. >It isn't supported and it doesn't work What is "it"? >I mean why would my first post be "Boy I wish I could use Haskell on my platform" if... I could use Haskell on my platform? Because you incorrectly believe you can't. >It would be much easier to compile via portable C or C++ that was human readable Then do that, like I told you repeatedly. The fact that you have one of the developers of a haskell compiler trying to help you and you are entirely hostile and evasive makes it hard to take you seriously.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    > Correct. Why would you think that when I've said exactly the opposite? Who is being hostile and evasive here? > What is "it"? Also already mentioned above (file formats, instruction sets, calling conventions). > Because you incorrectly believe you can't. I wish that was true. > Then do that, like I told you repeatedly. If you show me how to generate portable C or C++ that's human readable from Haskell, I'd be happy to. You keep claiming Haskell solves my problems, except every time we look closely at your recommendations, they are full of holes. And I'm hostile and evasive.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      >Why would you think that when I've said exactly the opposite? Because you refuse to provide even the most basic information. Like what exactly you tried to use even. >Also already mentioned above (file formats, instruction sets, calling conventions). Mentioning is not helpful, telling is. So tell. What format? What instruction set? What compiler? >You keep claiming Haskell solves my problems I claimed nothing. I asked you a simple question to try to help you. And look at your responses. You still haven't answered a single basic question. >And I'm hostile and evasive. Yes. You refuse to answer even the most basic question that is needed to help you. You do not want help, you want to make a vague, baseless complaint and then avoid having that complaint proven baseless by refusing to provide any information.
      - jjnoakes 10y ago
        I've provided enough information to get to the right answer (Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C or C++ so I can't build Haskell code using my tool chain). That's all that matters to me. I'm not sure what crusade you are on... but if you had read the comments you replied to you would have avoided wasting my time and yours offering up Haskell as a solution when, based on information contained in the very posts you replied to, you should have been able to figure out that such a position was a misrepresentation. Whether it was intentional or not I will refrain from speculating.
        MustardTiger 10y ago
        Your characterization of the discussion is not accurate. Read the thread, it is still here. You lamented not being able to use haskell. I took this in good faith and tried to help you to use haskell. You have done nothing but deflect and derail trying to avoid being helped. You insist haskell can't do this, but you still can't even tell me what haskell compiler you even tried. There's dozens of supported platforms, and more than one compiler that produces C. You are being dishonest because you never actually wanted to use haskell, you just want to post vague anti-haskell nonsense. >Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C Haskell isn't a compiler. Different compilers support different platforms. You insist "haskell" has never heard of your platform, but I guarentee you can't find a platform that I can't compile haskell code on successfully. You are simply being dishonest. And yet again, yes, multiple haskell compilers produce human readable C code as output.

jjnoakes 10y ago

You think I haven't tried using Haskell on my platform? It isn't supported and it doesn't work. So you misrepresented things. I mean why would my first post be "Boy I wish I could use Haskell on my platform" if... I could use Haskell on my platform? Now I could put a ton of effort into it... for each platform... but I don't have that kind of time to maintain Haskell for N platforms. It would be much easier to compile via portable C or C++ that was human readable. But I would expect, since Haskell has lazy evaluation and a GC, that there is almost no way to map to readable C or C++. Thunks flying around, continuations, ...

MustardTiger 10y ago
>You think I haven't tried using Haskell on my platform? Correct. >It isn't supported and it doesn't work What is "it"? >I mean why would my first post be "Boy I wish I could use Haskell on my platform" if... I could use Haskell on my platform? Because you incorrectly believe you can't. >It would be much easier to compile via portable C or C++ that was human readable Then do that, like I told you repeatedly. The fact that you have one of the developers of a haskell compiler trying to help you and you are entirely hostile and evasive makes it hard to take you seriously.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  > Correct. Why would you think that when I've said exactly the opposite? Who is being hostile and evasive here? > What is "it"? Also already mentioned above (file formats, instruction sets, calling conventions). > Because you incorrectly believe you can't. I wish that was true. > Then do that, like I told you repeatedly. If you show me how to generate portable C or C++ that's human readable from Haskell, I'd be happy to. You keep claiming Haskell solves my problems, except every time we look closely at your recommendations, they are full of holes. And I'm hostile and evasive.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    >Why would you think that when I've said exactly the opposite? Because you refuse to provide even the most basic information. Like what exactly you tried to use even. >Also already mentioned above (file formats, instruction sets, calling conventions). Mentioning is not helpful, telling is. So tell. What format? What instruction set? What compiler? >You keep claiming Haskell solves my problems I claimed nothing. I asked you a simple question to try to help you. And look at your responses. You still haven't answered a single basic question. >And I'm hostile and evasive. Yes. You refuse to answer even the most basic question that is needed to help you. You do not want help, you want to make a vague, baseless complaint and then avoid having that complaint proven baseless by refusing to provide any information.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      I've provided enough information to get to the right answer (Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C or C++ so I can't build Haskell code using my tool chain). That's all that matters to me. I'm not sure what crusade you are on... but if you had read the comments you replied to you would have avoided wasting my time and yours offering up Haskell as a solution when, based on information contained in the very posts you replied to, you should have been able to figure out that such a position was a misrepresentation. Whether it was intentional or not I will refrain from speculating.
      - MustardTiger 10y ago
        Your characterization of the discussion is not accurate. Read the thread, it is still here. You lamented not being able to use haskell. I took this in good faith and tried to help you to use haskell. You have done nothing but deflect and derail trying to avoid being helped. You insist haskell can't do this, but you still can't even tell me what haskell compiler you even tried. There's dozens of supported platforms, and more than one compiler that produces C. You are being dishonest because you never actually wanted to use haskell, you just want to post vague anti-haskell nonsense. >Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C Haskell isn't a compiler. Different compilers support different platforms. You insist "haskell" has never heard of your platform, but I guarentee you can't find a platform that I can't compile haskell code on successfully. You are simply being dishonest. And yet again, yes, multiple haskell compilers produce human readable C code as output.