>> - The program doesn't actually /run/ any more. It can't find the
>> necessary DLLs. It seems that /you/ have to manually copy them to
>> somewhere sensible and/or alter the search path.
>
> DLLs are searched the same place that .exes are searched, except with
> the addition of the directory that the .exe is in, if there's also a
> magic file that says "search this directory too" to circumvent DLL hell.
> :-)

I'm just loving the fact that installing the compiler and telling it to 
compile something is broken out-of-the-box. The fact that it does 
eventually works proves that somebody actually tested it, but one 
wonders what the hell kind of testing they did while managing to miss 
this one...

Also: What about DLLs registered in the... registry?

And didn't "DLL hell" get fixed, like, 10 years ago?

>> - These five DLLs add up to 8MB. (!)
>
> Well, sure. Because you're not just selecting at link time the routines
> you use. If you have 30 Haskell programs installed, that's a net win.

Apparently the compiler's dead code elimination works quite well. But 
anyway, I guess you'd have to have quite a lot of Haskell executables 
before the disk space and setup complexity of DLLs makes it even vaguely 
worth the effort.

>> In summary, I don't think I'll rush out and use this feature anytime
>> soon.
>
> You should, so you can report on success and failure, and improve the
> product. You *are* one of only 38 beta testers, after all.

I'm sure the number of people testing on Windows is nearer to 2. Hell, 
even Mac OS seems to get better support than Windows...

> Welcome to open source, where by the time you're competent enough to fix
> the documentation, you no longer need the documentation!

Yeah, tell me about it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message