Programming Language Fragility - Haskell

Welcome to the Functional Programming Zulip Chat Archive. You can join the chat here.

Magnus Therning

Isn't that an "interesting" definition of fragility?

Yes, apparently golang is, yet again, the best solution :blush:

Mats Rauhala

Yup, interesting definition for fragility. But those are valid concerns and use cases. I would love to have a more portable haskell binaries.

Vance Palacio

I've read that go's portability is pretty impressive. How do they achieve that? What would it take to do that for ghc? (I'm sure a non-trivial amount of work)

Pedro Minicz

Very interesting. How does Go achieve that?

Georgi Lyubenov // googleson78

I think they just reimplement everything they need from libc

Pedro Minicz

"Independence from C" seems like something hard to get. Independence from libc is even more.

Pedro Minicz

I don't really see how that makes it more portable. Doesn't that just mean you have to reimplement the necessary parts of libc for every platform you want to port to?

Georgi Lyubenov // googleson78

you can also use musl by default, or some equivalent

Pedro Minicz

Doesn't that make it even harder to port? (Maybe less "fragile" given the definition.)

Pedro Minicz

Yes. But but musl is libc nonetheless.

Pedro Minicz

Maybe the author means glibc specifically, which is bloated and hard to port compared to musl libc.