> It has a pretty serious relationship to whether or not some haskell implementation has the ability to generation objects and libraries and binaries for it.
That's right. And as i just said, zero relationship to the question you keep failing to answer. Where are these multiple Haskell-to-readable-C implementations you tried to make up?
> And it does that.
So now you reversed your position again and you are claiming that Haskell can generate binaries for my system without knowing what my system is?
Keep it classy. I'll let you talk yourself in circles. You don't need me for that.
Start here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11708601
(Let me know if I have to read the thread back to you again).
So which is it going to be next? You did or you didn't claim that Haskell supports my platforms?
Inquiring minds want to know!
You: "Of course, that's what ghc does by default."
And it does that. And that has nothing to do with the random nonsense about magic and knowing nothing about formats you made up afterwards. Your dishonesty is remarkable.
>Unless you can explain how me naming the systems I support has any relationship to whether or not some Haskell implementation has the ability to generate human-readable C code?
It has a pretty serious relationship to whether or not some haskell implementation has the ability to generation objects and libraries and binaries for it. You know, the thing you are still harping on dishonestly?