David Menendez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone in a previous thread made an analogy between GHC and the linux
kernel. I imagine that third-party Haskell distributions, consisting
of GHC/Hugs/whatever and some bundled packages, would meet the desire
for a batteries included Haskell
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did a quick popularity count by wget'ting the whole thing, and
looking for hrefs under cgi-bin/packages/archive¹.
That's quite fascinating. Thanks. You've convinced me we should add
something like that :-).
Note that that was only a direct count, I
snip
Many other programming languages have packaging strategies that sound
very similar. Several of them have managed to have a negative impact on
platforms that already have good packaging technologies (i.e. almost
every platform apart from Windows ;-). I'd hate to see Haskell go in a
| Well, I've already filed 4 bugs against GHC. One was already fixed by
| GHC 6.8.1 (yays!), one is trivial and will be fixed in 6.8.2, and the
| other two it seems nobody is keen to work on. (In fairness, one of them
| is fairly nontrivial.) I get the impression that I'd probably be
| regarded as
Some random thoughts triggered by this thread
1. I've been bowled over by the creativity unleashed by having a central site
(Hackage), with a consistent installation story (Cabal), where you can upload
packages with no central intervention. A single issue of the Haskell Weekly
(sic) News
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:59 +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Some random thoughts triggered by this thread
1. I've been bowled over by the creativity unleashed by having a
central site (Hackage), with a consistent installation story (Cabal),
where you can upload packages with no central
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. Meanwhile, we could get a lot more mileage from de-centralised
approaches. Ideas I saw in this thread that sound attractive to me
are to make Hackage display, for each package:
- date of last update
- download statistics
- some kind of
On Nov 21, 2007 5:59 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. We absolutely must not conflate GHC releases with QA-stamped library
bundles. The latter would be great, but the two must be separate. (For
reasons given by others in this thread.)
Someone in a previous thread made an
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:59:21AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(Is this list complete?)
i would like to see some feedback (voting/scoring/message board)
system for guaging interest in needed/missing/incomplete functionality
my primary concern from the start of the thread was filling
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Some random thoughts triggered by this thread
1. I've been bowled over by the creativity unleashed by having a central site
(Hackage), with a consistent installation story (Cabal), where you can upload
packages with no central intervention. A single issue of the
Duncan Coutts wrote:
Grab the hackage code from:
http://darcs.haskell.org/hackage-scripts/
Send patches to the cabal-devel mailing list. Everyone is most welcome
to subscribe too.
So... the HackageDB HTTP frontend is just a set of CGI scripts written
in Haskell? (As far as I can tell,
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Well, I've already filed 4 bugs against GHC. One was already fixed by
| GHC 6.8.1 (yays!), one is trivial and will be fixed in 6.8.2, and the
| other two it seems nobody is keen to work on. (In fairness, one of them
| is fairly nontrivial.) I get the impression that
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:33:21 +, Vladimir Zlatanov wrote:
Yes, those are good points. Maybe adding functionality similar to plt's
planet http://planet.plt-scheme.org and
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/371/html/mzscheme/mzscheme-Z-H-5.html#node_sec_5.4
In plt scheme including a module,
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 20:14, Magnus Therning wrote:
Many other programming languages have packaging strategies that sound
very similar. Several of them have managed to have a negative impact on
platforms that already have good packaging technologies (i.e. almost
every platform apart
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:33:21 +, Vladimir Zlatanov wrote:
Yes, those are good points. Maybe adding functionality similar to plt's
planet http://planet.plt-scheme.org and
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/371/html/mzscheme/mzscheme-Z-H-5.html#node_sec_5.4
In plt
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:14:09PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
Many other programming languages have packaging strategies that sound
very similar. Several of them have managed to have a negative impact on
platforms that already have good packaging technologies (i.e. almost
every platform
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:57 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
No Google page rank-alike?
I did a quick popularity count by wget'ting the whole thing, and
looking for hrefs under cgi-bin/packages/archive¹. Not exact, as it
counts links to the previous version, but a rough approximation. Page
rank
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 20:40:01 +, Alex Young wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:33:21 +, Vladimir Zlatanov wrote:
Yes, those are good points. Maybe adding functionality similar to plt's
planet http://planet.plt-scheme.org and
Magnus Therning wrote:
“Rubygems is source-intrusive. The require instruction is replaced by a
require_gem instruction to allow for versioned dependencies. Debian and
most other systems think that dealing with versioned dependencies
outside of the source is a better idea.”
To drag the
On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:25 , Ketil Malde wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only up to a point; not all programs written using such libraries are
necessarily going to end up on hackage. (Consider the code written
by the financials folks that have been mentioned here
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Hardest of all: evolution. Both GHC's user manual and library docs
change every release. Even material that doesn't change can get moved
(e.g. section reorganisation). We don't want to simply discard all
user notes! But it's hard to know how
| the php documentation has user contributed notes
| http://www.php.net/manual/en/introduction.php
| I think this is a very nice feature.
* Hardest of all: evolution. Both GHC's user manual and
library docs change every release. Even material that
doesn't change can get moved
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kind of like Google PageRank for libraries.
Yes.
Only up to a point; not all programs written using such libraries are
necessarily going to end up on hackage. (Consider the code written
by the financials folks that have been mentioned here
| the php documentation has user contributed notes where people can leave
| sniplets of useful code as comments, eg
|
| http://www.php.net/manual/en/introduction.php
|
| I think this is a very nice feature.
|
| I would love to have this on haskell, especially because the
| documentation often
Hi,
* Hardest of all: evolution. Both GHC's user manual and library docs change
every release. Even material that doesn't change can get moved (e.g. section
reorganisation). We don't want to simply discard all user notes! But it's
hard to know how to keep them attached; after all they
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 21:49 -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 10:25 -0800, brad clawsie wrote:
i would categorize myself as a purely practical programmer. i enjoy
using haskell for various practical tasks and it has served me
reliably. one issue i have with the library support for practical
problem domains is the half-finished state
I would like to compare this to the GNOME development platform. It has
Gtk+ at it's hart but GNOME releases are not synchronised with Gtk+
releases. The GNOME development platform consists of a collection of
standard packages. The collection is released on a time-based schedule,
not a
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:55:47AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
But we're just not sure how to do it:
* What technology to use?
* Matching up the note-adding technology with the existing
infrastructure - GHC's user manual starts as XML and is generated into
HTML by DocBook - In
Yes, those are good points. Maybe adding functionality similar to plt's
planet http://planet.plt-scheme.org and
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/371/html/mzscheme/mzscheme-Z-H-5.html#node_sec_5.4
In plt scheme including a module, not present in the local repository
, but included via planet,
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:33 +, Krzysztof Kościuszkiewicz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:55:47AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
But we're just not sure how to do it:
* What technology to use?
* Matching up the note-adding technology with the existing
infrastructure - GHC's
Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would advocate using a comment system that is similar to the one
at http://djangobook.com/.
I'm pretty sure Brian O'Sullivan has written a Haskell implementation of
this for the Real World Haskell book.
While the technology is there (or will
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:00 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would advocate using a comment system that is similar to the one
at http://djangobook.com/.
I'm pretty sure Brian O'Sullivan has written a Haskell implementation of
this for the Real
Krzysztof Kościuszkiewicz wrote:
I would advocate using a comment system that is similar to the one
at http://djangobook.com/.
That's an appealing idea, but the devil lies in the details.
I wrote just such a comment system for draft chapters of our book, and
it's seen a lot of use.
Hello brad,
Monday, November 19, 2007, 9:25:40 PM, you wrote:
practical projects. the batteries included approach does imply
choosing preferred solutions when more than one library is available,
this can also be difficult. that said, i think haskell would pick up a
lot of new coders if it
On 11/20/07 7:35 AM, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:00 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can all to easily imagine a situation where any documentation is
riddled with a plethora of notes, questions, answers, comments etc,
with nobody to
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:45 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
it can be made easy and automatic by just publishing number of
downloads on hackage
So if I download all 4 HTML libs to try to figure out which one fits
best, I mod all four up? Seems wrong to me.
Also
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I would like to compare this to the GNOME development platform. It has
Gtk+ at it's hart but GNOME releases are not synchronised with Gtk+
releases. The GNOME development platform consists of a collection of
standard packages. The collection is released on a time-based
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:03 -0800, Keith Fahlgren wrote:
On 11/20/07 7:35 AM, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:00 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can all to easily imagine a situation where any documentation is
riddled with a
On Nov 19, 2007 10:25 AM, brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so far the haskell community has taken the cpan route for most
practical libs but i wonder if a batteries included approach might
help get some key libraries to a more complete state. in particular, i
would like to see support for
Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/19/2007 02:08 PM
To
brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject
Re: [Haskell-cafe] expanded standard lib
On Nov 19, 2007 10:25 AM, brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so far the haskell community has taken the cpan
Justin Bailey wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 10:25 AM, brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so far the haskell community has taken the cpan route for most
practical libs but i wonder if a batteries included approach might
help get some key libraries to a more complete state. in particular, i
would
Hi
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
- Almost all packages seem
andrewcoppin:
Hackage seems like a nice idea in principle. However,
I think in practice too: we had no central lib archive or dependency
system, now we have 400 libraries, and a package installer, 10 months
later. Until Hackage, there was a strong pressure not to reuse other
people's
ndmitchell:
Hi
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
-
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
i would just like to add that i have had a great deal of success with
hackage and find that most libraries support what they say they will
support, but often
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 12:17 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
Hackage seems like a nice idea in principle. However,
I think in practice too: we had no central lib archive or dependency
system, now we have 400 libraries, and a package installer, 10 months
later. Until Hackage,
2007/11/19, brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
by rolling certain libraries into a base distribution, i was implying
that there would be more eyeballs
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 21:47 +0100, Radosław Grzanka wrote:
2007/11/19, brad clawsie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
by rolling certain libraries into a base
At Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:25:40 -0800,
brad clawsie wrote:
so far the haskell community has taken the cpan route for most
practical libs but i wonder if a batteries included approach might
help get some key libraries to a more complete state. in particular, i
would like to see support for basic
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, brad clawsie wrote:
i would categorize myself as a purely practical programmer. i enjoy
using haskell for various practical tasks and it has served me
reliably. one issue i have with the library support for practical
problem domains is the half-finished state of many
whereas today the decision is often directed by
what is standard?. With this solution we wouldn't have had the FiniteMap
break, we could choose more equally between different data structure
collections (say Edison vs. GHC libs), monad libraries, and so on.
this is a good point...blessing one
brad clawsie wrote:
in any case, batteries included or not, ghc seems to have reached a
point of stability, high performance, and lots of neat fundamental
features that it can be left alone for a short time. i would love to
see 2008 be the year we direct time and effort to solve filling holes
On Nov 19, 2007, at 15:13 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are
excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the
On Nov 19, 2007, at 15:47 , Radosław Grzanka wrote:
If you look at the stability tag of ghc libraries you will see that a
lot of them are marked as provisional (Network.URI for example) or
experimental (Control.Monad.Trans).
This may not refer to what most people care about; the experimental
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 15:13 , Neil Mitchell wrote:
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are
excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 15:47 , Radosław Grzanka wrote:
If you look at the stability tag of ghc libraries you will see that a
lot of them are marked as provisional (Network.URI for example) or
experimental (Control.Monad.Trans).
This may
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective
On Nov 19, 2007, at 17:01 , Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
The ability to vote on packages might be interesting here. If
there's 4 HTML libraries and one of them gets lots of votes, it's
probably the one to look at first.
It occurred to me that the voting could be
Don Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
Hackage seems like a nice idea in principle. However,
I think in practice too: we had no central lib archive or dependency
system, now we have 400 libraries, and a package installer, 10 months
later.
Hackage is that new??
- The packages seem to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Mads [ISO-8859-1] Lindstrøm wrote:
It occurred to me that the voting could be implicit. That is, if 10
libraries/programs use library X, then library X gets 10 votes. Kind of
like Google PageRank for libraries.
It would be good if users could comment verbally. They could
Cafe haskell-cafe@haskell.org
cc
Subject
Re: [Haskell-cafe] expanded standard lib
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Mads [ISO-8859-1] Lindstrøm wrote:
It occurred to me that the voting could be implicit. That is, if 10
libraries/programs use library X, then library X gets 10 votes. Kind of
like Google
On Nov 19, 2007, at 23:13 , Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 15:47 , Radosław Grzanka wrote:
If you look at the stability tag of ghc libraries you will see
that a
lot of them are marked as provisional (Network.URI for
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Thomas Hartman wrote:
the php documentation has user contributed notes where people can leave
sniplets of useful code as comments, eg
http://www.php.net/manual/en/introduction.php
I think this is a very nice feature.
yup, for php it gives users a
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 21:22 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Where is the correct place for Cabal bugs?
This and other questions are explained at .. *drumroll* .. the Cabal
Homepage!! -- http://www.haskell.org/cabal/
:)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Neil Mitchell wrote:
- The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent,
some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more).
The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of
a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
Not
On Nov 19, 2007 11:27 PM, Thomas Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the php documentation has user contributed notes where people can leave
sniplets of useful code as comments, eg
http://www.php.net/manual/en/introduction.php
I think this is a very nice feature.
I would love to have this on
67 matches
Mail list logo
