News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by pron on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:25AM (#13071423)
What I heard is that all of their Haskell software combined is about ~1MLOC (and they don't comprise a single system), and a huge chunk of that (a couple 100KLOCs at least) is the Haskell compiler itself, which they've modified and consider a part of their codebase. The Haskell compiler is still the largest Haskell program, and if it isn't, there are no more than a couple programs that are larger.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by tome on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:49AM (#13071646)
> a huge chunk of that (a couple 100KLOCs at least) is the Haskell compiler itself, which they've modified and consider a part of their codebase

Please don't talk about what you don't know. Standard Chartered's Haskell compiler is written completely from scratch and is not based on any existing compiler.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by pron on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:05AM (#13071815)
Sorry, that's what I'd heard (or I may have misinterpreted "a variant of Haskell" as "a variant of the Haskell compiler" all on my own); thank you for correcting me. So what you're saying is that biggest Haskell program isn't the Haskell compiler, but that the two biggest[1] Haskell programs are two completely different Haskell compilers.

(Also, while it has little to do with my point, I've also heard that the person behind SC's Haskell compiler is the one who'd written the first ever Haskell compiler, long before he started working for SC; is that true?)

[1]: Please don't take this too literally. In the two decades that have passed since Haskell was declared the language to end world hunger, someone may have written a bigger program. Maybe even two.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by tome on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @04:15PM (#13074755)
AFAIR the Mu compiler is not even the biggest program written in Haskell inside Standard Chartered.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by seanparsons on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:38AM (#13071550)
So in that case, what's important about your 1MLOC requirement? I can't even begin to imagine that much Haskell code versus a similar line count in say C.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standardized Ladder of Functional Programming [pdf] by pron on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:52AM (#13071680)
Modern programming languages do not vary in their line-count by too much. If you want to compare to C, you may be able to get a 1 order-of-magnitude reduction in size if you're lucky, but 10MLOC C programs are common (Linux kernel is >15MLOC; MS Office is 30MLOC; LibreOffice is 12.5MLOC), as are 1MLOC programs in more modern programming languages.
[ Parent | on HN ]