# Single-compiler vs. multi-compilers (or. implementation-defined vs. standardized) languages

**URL:** <https://discourse.haskell.org/t/single-compiler-vs-multi-compilers-or-implementation-defined-vs-standardized-languages/5209>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [October 23, 2022, 6:28am UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/single-compiler-vs-multi-compilers-or-implementation-defined-vs-standardized-languages/5209 "2022-10-23T06:28:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 51

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![int-index](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.haskell.org/int-index/32/4156_2.png) [@int-index](https://discourse.haskell.org/u/int-index)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2022, 9:57pm UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/single-compiler-vs-multi-compilers-or-implementation-defined-vs-standardized-languages/5209/51 "2022-10-31T21:57:28Z")

</div>

> I don’t believe we should invest any resource to make Haskell a dependently-typed language for the masses at this point.

I’m not sure who you include in this use of “we”, but the company I currently work at—[Serokell](https://serokell.io/)—is investing resources in exactly that. To be more precise, the form in which they are investing is paying my salary, as implementing dependent types in Haskell is basically my job. I would like to ask you not to try to change their minds about this.

Besides, the GHC Steering Committee has accepted the [Design for Dependent Types](https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0378-dependent-type-design.rst) proposal. There’s huge demand for dependent types in Haskell (there’s also some resistance, but it doesn’t cancel out the demand).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/single-compiler-vs-multi-compilers-or-implementation-defined-vs-standardized-languages/5209)._