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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!