# Is anyone using MicroHs?

**URL:** <https://discourse.haskell.org/t/is-anyone-using-microhs/11437>\
**Category:** Learn\
**Created:** [February 19, 2025, 6:57am UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/is-anyone-using-microhs/11437 "2025-02-19T06:57:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tristanC](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.haskell.org/tristanc/32/827_2.png) [@tristanC](https://discourse.haskell.org/u/tristanC)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2025, 12:18pm UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/is-anyone-using-microhs/11437/11 "2025-02-21T12:18:42Z")

</div>

Sure, here is why I’m excited about MicroHs:

As explained in [http://discourse.haskell.org/t/haskell-tools-could-loose-some-weight](http://discourse.haskell.org/t/haskell-tools-could-loose-some-weight) , MicroHs is awesome because it lets you use Haskell with a lightweight compiler that is easier to adopt than GHC (e.g. you basically only need gcc and a few MB of disk space to set it up).

Then the compilation/evaluation model using combinator graph is fascinating, checkout [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIE7umTroBY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIE7umTroBY) , toward the end Lennart demonstrates how it specializes expressions.

The runtime and your application is compiled down to machine code using a C compiler, which can be used to target embedded environment like micro-controllers.

Lastly, I hope MicroHs won’t adopt complicated extension like TemplateHaskell, which I think is necessary to achieve Simple Haskell.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/is-anyone-using-microhs/11437)._