Re: [Algorithms] Complexity of new hardware

[Rachel B. <r....@gm...>]

> Exactly - C/C++ is an excellent target format.

Maybe, possibly, C is a decent target format. C++, for all intents and  
purposes, is a dinosaur in an evolutionary dead end. The compile times  
are completely unacceptable for what it gives you.

It might be worth considering a VM as your intermediate target instead.


> Haskell already compiles 'via-c'. I'd be looking at targeting any  
> domain
> specific language at generating C/C++, not assembly.

In turn extending your compile times... which is really not that high  
on my list of priorities. Writing a front end for your DSL that works  
with e.g. LLVM seems like the better choice, if you *have* to write  
your own DSL compiler.

> I note that generating C/C++ doesn't mean you can't run your DSL in an
> interpreted mode for fast development/debugging. I'd expect the tight
> control over side effects in functional languages to aid this.

Ultimately, that's the first step into a model of "calcifying"[1]  
software. You start with an extremely malleable language, and it  
gradually hardens over time. (By compiling, providing annotations to  
the compiler, etc...)

Haskell seems to be the farthest along that way, for now.  If there  
are any other recommendations, I'd love to hear them.

Rachel

[1] My own terminology. If there's a commonly agreed upon term, please  
let me know. (And if there's any *research* in that area, doubly so!).  
Thanks in advance!