Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by MustardTiger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

MustardTiger

>Why would you think that when I've said exactly the opposite?

Because you refuse to provide even the most basic information. Like what exactly you tried to use even.

>Also already mentioned above (file formats, instruction sets, calling conventions).

Mentioning is not helpful, telling is. So tell. What format? What instruction set? What compiler?

>You keep claiming Haskell solves my problems

I claimed nothing. I asked you a simple question to try to help you. And look at your responses. You still haven't answered a single basic question.

>And I'm hostile and evasive.

Yes. You refuse to answer even the most basic question that is needed to help you. You do not want help, you want to make a vague, baseless complaint and then avoid having that complaint proven baseless by refusing to provide any information.

View on HN

I've provided enough information to get to the right answer (Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C or C++ so I can't build Haskell code using my tool chain).

That's all that matters to me. I'm not sure what crusade you are on... but if you had read the comments you replied to you would have avoided wasting my time and yours offering up Haskell as a solution when, based on information contained in the very posts you replied to, you should have been able to figure out that such a position was a misrepresentation.

Whether it was intentional or not I will refrain from speculating.

Your characterization of the discussion is not accurate. Read the thread, it is still here. You lamented not being able to use haskell. I took this in good faith and tried to help you to use haskell. You have done nothing but deflect and derail trying to avoid being helped. You insist haskell can't do this, but you still can't even tell me what haskell compiler you even tried. There's dozens of supported platforms, and more than one compiler that produces C. You are being dishonest because you never actually wanted to use haskell, you just want to post vague anti-haskell nonsense.

>Haskell isn't magical and can't compile to my platforms if it never heard of them, and it doesn't generate portable and human readable C

Haskell isn't a compiler. Different compilers support different platforms. You insist "haskell" has never heard of your platform, but I guarentee you can't find a platform that I can't compile haskell code on successfully. You are simply being dishonest. And yet again, yes, multiple haskell compilers produce human readable C code as output.

I have only looked into GHC.

> I [...] tried to help you to use haskell.

No, you made claims like Haskell natively supported compiling to the targets I am using without even knowing what those targets are. That's not helpful to anyone.

> You have done nothing but deflect and derail

Also not true. I provided plenty of information and offered up an analogous situation. You decided to ignore that, and ignore the other things I said, and you continue to attack me instead.

> multiple haskell compilers produce human readable C code as output

If this was true all you had to do (8 posts up) was mention this. Why all the cloak and dagger? Why all of the ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation? Why not just offer up a simple solution that you know about?

I'd appreciate a list of which Haskell compilers produce portable human readable C code. I'd love to use them, if they exist.

Next time someone says "I'd love if Haskell could compile to human readable C or C++" and you know of an implementation of such, it'd be helpful to mention that, instead of tilting off on whatever personal crusade you imagined up against me.

>No, you made claims like Haskell natively supported compiling to the targets I am using

I did not. I asked what they were. You still have not answered.

>That's not helpful to anyone

Neither is lying.

>I provided plenty of information

You have provided one piece of information, after many many posts: ghc. What OS and platform do you think it doesn't support?

> I did not

You did. Do you need a link to it?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11707328

> You still have not answered

That's right, I refused to, over and over. The answers are irrelevant.

> You have provided one piece of information

That's right, and zero pieces of information were required for you to be helpful. You claimed you were trying to be, but your actions speak much louder than your words.

> Neither is lying.

You claim repeatedly that Haskell compiles to readable C. It doesn't, which is why you can't list any single implementation which does.

Thanks for trolling.

Good bye.

>You did. Do you need a link to it?

That does not say anything of the sort. It says there are haskell compilers that compile to native binaries and interoperate in a native code environment. You simply refuse to specify your platform so you can try to maintain the illusion that someone would still think you aren't full of it. You aren't even fooling yourself.

>That's right, I refused to, over and over. The answers are irrelevant.

Not if you actually wanted help they aren't. But since you actually just want to shitpost, all your refusal does is make it clear you are dishonest.

> That does not say anything of the sort.

Do I have to read it for you too?

Me: "Are you suggesting Haskell can generate object files, shared objects, and binaries for my systems without compiling to C or C++ first?"

You: "Of course, that's what ghc does by default."

And now you claim you were not saying "anything of the sort" when I point out that you claimed "Haskell natively supported compiling to the targets I am using without even knowing what those targets are"?

> Not if you actually wanted help they aren't.

100% they are. 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?

> But since you actually just want to shitpost

The only shitpost here is you backtracking your claims repeatedly.

Unless you listed those Haskell implementations you claimed existed somewhere and I missed it?

I'd appreciate a link if so.

If not: Good bye again.

>Me: "Are you suggesting Haskell can generate object files, shared objects, and binaries for my systems without compiling to C or C++ first?"

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?

> 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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com