> Mu is a true Haskell dialect in that code written in Mu may be compiled with a Haskell compiler.
> [...]
> Their experience with strict semantics has been positive. Particularly useful is the ease of obtaining meaningful stack traces, tracking resource usage, […]
My point was that "if S&C is to count as a Haskell success story (which it's often touted as), then it's fair to point out that it's a codebase where eager evaluation is used throughout." Please note the 'if'. The article presents S&C's large Mu codebase as a Haskell success story. In this context it's perfectly fair to point out that Mu has a strict semantics.
If you want to insist that Mu is an 'entirely different' language to Haskell then that's fine. As with natural languages, there's no objective line to be drawn between 'different dialect' and 'different language'. However, anyone who holds to this view obviously cannot follow the article in presenting a large Mu codebase as an example of Haskell in production.
What is described in article is a subset of Haskell: "...as long as one is writing mostly vanilla Haskell you can’t tell the difference."
And then it proceeds to tell us that you can't tail recurse.
Mu is different language which uses Haskell ecosystem.
What I am interested in and what article does not tell is how big the actual Mu compiler is. I think it is in the hundreds of thousands of lines of code, 200K SLOC or more.
And it is still a big code base and it's use of Haskell is success.
> Mu is a true Haskell dialect in that code written in Mu may be compiled with a Haskell compiler.
> [...]
> Their experience with strict semantics has been positive. Particularly useful is the ease of obtaining meaningful stack traces, tracking resource usage, […]
My point was that "if S&C is to count as a Haskell success story (which it's often touted as), then it's fair to point out that it's a codebase where eager evaluation is used throughout." Please note the 'if'. The article presents S&C's large Mu codebase as a Haskell success story. In this context it's perfectly fair to point out that Mu has a strict semantics.
If you want to insist that Mu is an 'entirely different' language to Haskell then that's fine. As with natural languages, there's no objective line to be drawn between 'different dialect' and 'different language'. However, anyone who holds to this view obviously cannot follow the article in presenting a large Mu codebase as an example of Haskell in production.