> For people new to the party, this looks great. For those who had been following the GHCVM project, it's a horrible disappointment.
maybe it's for the best? a ghc-is-the-spec approach to developing a haskell implementation seems... well, perhaps convenient, but less hygienic for the overall language. (that said i don't actually know what eta's philosophy here is.)
Eta will still be "Haskell" because they conform to the language spec, even if they don't have all the features of the latest version of GHC (the flagship Haskell compiler).
I agree with the grandparents disappointment somewhat though. At the very least there is still room for someone to build a JVM compatible backend for GHC, since this is no longer a goal of Eta.
maybe it's for the best? a ghc-is-the-spec approach to developing a haskell implementation seems... well, perhaps convenient, but less hygienic for the overall language. (that said i don't actually know what eta's philosophy here is.)