BartC wrote:
This is exactly why I persist with my own language implementations. My current one is only 1/5000th the size but standard libraries are included!)
You might like to try a different Haskell implementation, such as Hugs: https://wiki.haskell.org/Hugs According to the web page, it comes with most of the same libraries as ghc. It's based on an older version of the Haskell standard, though, so I'm not sure if it's up to date with modern practice regarding monads, etc. Hugs is what I used last time I messed around with functional programming, and it seemed to work very nicely. I don't remember exactly how big it was, but it certainly wasn't measured in gigabytes! That's just ridiculous. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
