On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 August 2010 16:48, Gregory Crosswhite <gcr...@phys.washington.edu> wrote: >> On 8/4/10 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote: >>> >>> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote: >>>> >>>> Don't forget, GHC is open source: if this lack really was "dumb" and >>>> annoying you, there was nothing stopping you from rectifying this >>>> situation up until now. >>> >>> Except that, in the real world, this is actually completely infeasible. >>> Yes, I know it's the basic tenant of OSS that you can modify the program to >>> do whatever you want. But in reality, something like GHC is far too large >>> and complex for this to be a realistic possibility. And this holds for most >>> other nontrivial software too. >> >> Fair enough, but if one can't do better one's self then one should be >> careful about calling the work of others "dumb", which was the original >> point. > > Exactly. Either do it yourself or be grateful that someone has done > _something_, even if it isn't as good as you like. It's not like > you're paying for it...
My bad, no offense was meant, and perhaps I should choose my words better. I've read Manuel's papers and worked with Simon, and they're both very smart people. I wasn't commenting at all on the quality of their implementation, but rather trying to make the point that it's really a bug that it doesn't work, and, AFAIK, a bug that is going to be fixed. I think everyone can relate to the frustration that occurs when you are surprised by a feature being missing. I actually think it's a testament to the quality of GHC that things "just work" so often that I can be so surprised when they don't. -- ryan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
