On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Tim Newsham <news...@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/ > >
