|
|
|
|
|
by oscargrouch
4181 days ago
|
|
>First, GHC is not the same as requiring Java, since you don't need it to run the code I think you dont read what i've wrote, or more likely, im explaining it poorly(not a native, sorry) . This can be a binary to compile and create source code, but also and often can be embedded to be used as a library.. im guessing you are using Windows because you've said you dont have a c compiler at hand.. but Windows are most a end-user thing, and end-users probably wont care about compiling code.. otherwise a c/c++ compiler is ubiquotous Im not complaining about the tool, but about the use as a library, which is something this also aim to be, and C is a better aim at that because can be embedded in any language.. given the compiler is in haskel i cant access the AST for instance, i cant embed in my binary, but have to call another external binary instead.. but at least have a runtime to embed.. this may be ok for some.. but i was just saying that, despite the protocol language being very good, i couldnt use it instead of protobuf because i would have a more limited api and my end program/ goal would lose power and flexibility. This is a pretty technical explanation, it could be coded in Brainf*ck.. nothing against the lang in itself.. is just that it limits the use case of this tool(as compared with protobuf) |
|
ghc is pretty ubiquitous these days. Any serious linux distro will have a package so it's one line (apt-get install ghc or similar). Even on e.g. a mac it's no harder than installing ruby or python.
> given the compiler is in haskel i cant access the AST for instance, i cant embed in my binary, but have to call another external binary instead
You could write Haskell. It's a pretty nice language.
More to the point, Haskell does have a C FFI and allows you to build a library that exposes a C interface that C programs can link against. I don't know whether the authors have done that here, but the functionality is available.