Well said. Having a more aggressive release cycle is another interesting perspective. On Feb 10, 2013 6:21 PM, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:02:18PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > >> > >> You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of > updates? And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, > it's a very useful forcing function to get new features actually out and > tested. > > > > But the way you test new features is to write programs that use them, > > and programs depend on libraries. > > > > > > Thanks > > Ian > > Releasing GHC early and often (possibly with API breakage) isn't > really the problem. The real problem is how to coordinate with > library authors (e.g. Haskell Platform), etc. > > I suspect GHC should continue to offer a platform for research > and experiments. That is much harder if you curtail the ability to > release GHC early and often. > > -- Gaby > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-d...@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
