Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
serokell.io
Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
1–10 of 167 posts
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#2> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly
What does he mean by this?
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#3> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
From what I understand: GHC takes care of the parsing of the source file, error reporting, etc. Then the AST (or an intermediate representation) is passed to the of the Mu compiler, which performs whole-program optimisations.
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#4> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly Standard Charter uses their own “dialect” called Mu[1].
1 - https://icfp21.sigplan.org/details/hiw-2021-papers/14/Haskel...
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#5While Haskell jobs may appear scarce, Standard Chartered is often recruiting for Haskell devs:
https://discourse.haskell.org/search?expanded=true&q=Standar...
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#6> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
He probably means that GHC will parse and type check faster. Switching the front-end doesn't sound like it will circumvent the whole program nature of their compilation. But I'm just guessing.
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#7> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
I'm also interested. Just guessing, but I guess it means that while they use their own (slow compiling) 'Mu' dialect for most applications, they have switched to using 'standard' GHC for their front-end apps.
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#8> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly Standard Charter uses their own “dialect” called Mu[1]. 1 - https://icfp21.sigplan.org/details/hiw-2021-papers/14/Haskel...
[deleted]
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#9> Mu can easily take several minutes to compile a single large application. We will circumvent those problems by switching our front-end to use GHC directly What does he mean by this?
From what I understand: GHC takes care of the parsing of the source file, error reporting, etc. Then the AST (or an intermediate representation) is passed to the of the Mu compiler, which performs whole-program optimisations.
Gergo Erdi gave a talk on the GHC efforts of Standard Chartered last year:
Re: Haskell in Production: Standard Chartered
#10So many questions left unasked! In particular they have "recursion disabled by default" but "we have all the usual recursive combinators". Does this mean that they can't explicitly write recursion buy may achieve recursive effects only through the combinators? I'd like to know more about this. Is it as expressive as recursion only through "properly optimised" combinators?