> But it is difficult to track the ongoing discussion, because
> - the interface is slowwwwwww (they don't call it the "World Wide Wait"
> for nothing)
> - it is difficult to keep track of which parts you have read already
> and which parts are new
> - unlike say a mailing list, those wishing to track the discussion must
> remember to check the Web site regularly (or to use the jargon,
> it's "pull" technology rather than "push" technology).
>
> I spend some time looking at the Web site tonight, but eventually I got
> sick of the net lag and gave up.
>
> My question is this: was it the intent of the committee to deliberately
> discourage the participation of those not on the committee?
> Or was this feat achieved by accident?
That's unfair.
- I read the discussions pretty often and I have never had a problem with
net lag.
- This used to be somewhat of a problem, although the fact that browsers
show recently taken links in a different color alleviates it. But,
actually, as I noticed just yesterday, the color of the message titles
seems to be gradated from oldest to newest, so it is pretty easy to
get an idea of when something was posted. (In fact, I'm not sure if this
is a new feature or just because I was using IE instead of Netscape
for a change.)
- I have some sympathy for your third point. It probably would have been
better to have organized it as a (read only) mailing list.
I'm not sure if your last point is addressing the fact that only the Haskell
committee members can post to the message base, or just the problems you
mentioned above. If it's the former, it really shouldn't be a surprise to
you --- the last 4 versions of Haskell were designed by committee as well.
Furthermore, the standardization effort was (initially) supposed to be a
quick and dirty process to prune unnecessary complexity and streamline the
design. If every Haskell programmer got involved in the discussion directly
(as opposed to contacting one of the committee members, which is the way
you make a contribution now), it's easy to see that nothing would ever get
done. Especially if you look at the direction the committee has gone in
now, namely adding "needed" functionality at every turn.
Which brings me to my second point. To tell the truth, I think I've voiced
this opinion several times before, but after perusing the recent discussions,
I think the need is even more dire. Although I support most of the extensions
proposed (multi-parameter classes, context reduction, module signatures),
I think the committee is being unrealistic about being able to turn out a good,
stable, well-tested product so soon after so many changes. In particular,
as more than one of the members has mentioned, multi-parameter classes appear
to present a very complex design space, and even the experts (Mark Jones, et
al.) have overlooked some difficulties in their paper on the subject.
With all these extensions, can we really expect Standard Haskell to be the best
it could be? Why don't we just incorporate all the committee decisions into
a Haskell 1.5, leave it alone for a year and THEN, when we know that there are
no problems, just call it Standard Haskell?
---
Frank Christoph Next Solution Co. Tel: 0424-98-1811
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: 0424-98-1500
