Rewriting Dataframes for MicroHaskell

MicroHs binaries are ~100× smaller and ~5–10× slower for this workload; for many data-wrangling tasks that’s a great swap

Under which conditions is that a great swap? A 5x increase in processing times is absolutely huge, and even for moderate data volumes could make a data processing pipeline completely non-viable.

	▲	digdugdirk 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Local environments, embedded applications, client side processing via wasm... It's a cool project! We can figure out what to do with it later.
	▲	rowanG077 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is what I'm thinking. There are still use cases I would say where small binaries really matter. But then you are really choosing the wrong tool for the job with haskell, and I say this as a haskell stan. I expect an optimized C binary is much, much smaller still.
	▲	kreetx 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well, this is only "a great swap" in cases where the time taken is already so high that you won't notice a 10x. But this tradeoff would actually pay off where the compile time has a similar improvement as the size.