3 ms·
Sure, it's a bit weird but not that weird as they have a huge codebase in a specific domain. Also, they still end up using a lot of Haskell code (and semantics)
by tuukkah 3y ago
Sure, it's a bit weird but not that weird as they have a huge codebase in a specific domain. Also, they still end up using a lot of Haskell code (and semantics) although they write in a thin layer of "DSL" on top of Haskell and GHC (which itself is a lot of "Haskell in production").
> Mu has a strict runtime, which makes program performance easier to analyse and predict – but prevents us from just copy-pasting some Haskell libraries that rely crucially on lazy evaluation.
- boxed 3y agoFrom what I understood they don't use Haskell underneath at all, but they copy paste code from Haskell and sometimes have to modify it.
- tuukkah 3y agoThey say their codebase includes 400k lines of Haskell code (plus 4.5M lines of Mu). Also, they use GHC which is a huge Haskell program, and they customize it with their own extensions etc. As they copy Haskell library code and only sometimes modify it, I would count it as Haskell code until they modify it.