3 ms·

Read the GHC's docs because they disagree with you. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts

Read the GHC's docs because they disagree with you. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Interpreter https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Interpr... https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage/HeapObjects https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage... https://hackage.haskell.org/package/vacuum https://hackage.haskell.org/package/vacuum https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/slpj-book-1987/index.htm https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/paper... https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/pj-lester-book/ https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Paper... Haskell is a complex hybrid. TypeClasses can't always be resolved to concrete statically sized types, Haskell does RTS Magic for you when this happens. Rust throws a compiler error in this case.

jerf 10y ago
Implementing an abstraction that requires indirection at runtime does not traditionally render the language "not compiled". Any definition of "not compiled" that includes the vast majority of real-world C++ is not a definition in common use. If you want to point out that "compiled" really ought to be a continuum rather than a binary property, and that by this definition Rust is "more" compiled than Haskell, I'll be right there with you (though the pre-existing word "static" probably fits better), but we'd be creating an idiosyncratic definition not shared by very many people. (Though perhaps it should be. The binary distinction of the ~1970s really isn't that useful anymore, in a world of scripting languages, JITs, and a greater focus on the costs of indirection.)

3 ms·

Read the GHC's docs because they disagree with you. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts

by valarauca1 10y ago

jerf 10y ago
Implementing an abstraction that requires indirection at runtime does not traditionally render the language "not compiled". Any definition of "not compiled" that includes the vast majority of real-world C++ is not a definition in common use. If you want to point out that "compiled" really ought to be a continuum rather than a binary property, and that by this definition Rust is "more" compiled than Haskell, I'll be right there with you (though the pre-existing word "static" probably fits better), but we'd be creating an idiosyncratic definition not shared by very many people. (Though perhaps it should be. The binary distinction of the ~1970s really isn't that useful anymore, in a world of scripting languages, JITs, and a greater focus on the costs of indirection.)