On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Thomas DuBuisson
wrote:
> Daniel provided the wisdom:
>> "Do not knowingly make your code unportable unless you have a good reason to"
>>
>> Are there any objections to that maxim?
>
> Thanks for bringing some sanity back. I notice very few people have
> bothered
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:30 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > "John A. De Goes" wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop
> >> evolving in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why
> >> should
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:52 +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 13:41 schrieb John Lato:
> > I didn't phrase this well. In the context of my argument, "design for
> > cross-platform" meant "avoid platform-limiting choices in the absence
> > of any compelling reasons othe
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
"John A. De Goes" wrote:
The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop
evolving in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why
should it be Haskell? Haskell is a good language and it's time to
start benefiting fro
Daniel provided the wisdom:
> "Do not knowingly make your code unportable unless you have a good reason to"
>
> Are there any objections to that maxim?
Thanks for bringing some sanity back. I notice very few people have
bothered to comment on the wiki page Neil has setup. Incase anyone
has fogot
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 13:41 schrieb John Lato:
> I didn't phrase this well. In the context of my argument, "design for
> cross-platform" meant "avoid platform-limiting choices in the absence
> of any compelling reasons otherwise", which really isn't the same.
Could we sum that up as:
> John Lato writes:
>
>> Brandon Allbery wrote:
>>> On 2009 Feb 21, at 20:47, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 07:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
>
> Not showing platform-specific packages by default *might* make
> package writers more likely to develop cross-platform
>
John Lato writes:
> Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> On 2009 Feb 21, at 20:47, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 07:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
Not showing platform-specific packages by default *might* make
package writers more likely to develop cross-platform
packages.
"John A. De Goes" wrote:
> The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop
> evolving in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why
> should it be Haskell? Haskell is a good language and it's time to
> start benefiting from the research that's already gone into it. Tha
The problem is that PL research is probably not going to stop evolving
in our lifetimes. Yes, that research needs a venue, but why should it
be Haskell? Haskell is a good language and it's time to start
benefiting from the research that's already gone into it. That means
some tradeoffs.
Achim Schneider wrote:
> whatever comes first.
>
uhhh, make that "whatever comes last"
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.
__
"John A. De Goes" wrote:
> Personally, I'd be happy to see that explosion of innovation in the
> library and tool spaces, even if it means the language itself stops
> evolving (for the most part). It will make it a lot easier do use
> Haskell commercially, and the innovators in the language
I don't think it's that black and white.
At the lower end, when the language is controlled by a few, there's
not much innovation poured into the language or libraries, and there
are no tools to support development. As the community grows, you see
much more innovation in language and librar
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:54 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
> It's a chicken-egg thing. A Linux or OS X developer tries Haskell and
> finds he can write useful programs right away, with a minimum of fuss.
> But a Windows user tries Haskell and finds he has access to very few
> of the really goo
It's a chicken-egg thing. A Linux or OS X developer tries Haskell and
finds he can write useful programs right away, with a minimum of fuss.
But a Windows user tries Haskell and finds he has access to very few
of the really good libraries, and even the cross-platform libraries
won't build
John Lato wrote:
> I really don't see anything wrong with using Hoogle to increase
> awareness (although I would appreciate it if platform-specific
> packages were searched as an option).
>
You won't hear me argue against it, in fact, I argued in favour of it.
Increasing awareness of cross-platfo
Achim Schneider wrote:
> John Lato wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
>> wrote:
>> > On 2009 Feb 25, at 5:23, John Lato wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I have to second this; I'm a Unix sysadmin, 98% of the time if I'm
>> >>> writing a prog
John Lato wrote:
> you should consider that your unix-dependent software will never
> reach over 80% of the computer users available.
>
Now it's me...
wtf? Why should I care? If those users are not even willing to bend
their little finger to safe me from breaking my back attempting to
support th
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Cast
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 10:23 +, John Lato wrote:
>> 4. Cross-platform concerns are something that responsible developers
>> need to consider, just like localization and i18n. I.e., why
>> *shouldn't* you think of that?
>
> Sorry, wtf? I
John Lato wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
> wrote:
> > On 2009 Feb 25, at 5:23, John Lato wrote:
> >>
> >> Brandon Allbery wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have to second this; I'm a Unix sysadmin, 98% of the time if I'm
> >>> writing a program it's for Unix *and* requires
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
wrote:
> On 2009 Feb 25, at 5:23, John Lato wrote:
>>
>> Brandon Allbery wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to second this; I'm a Unix sysadmin, 98% of the time if I'm
>>> writing a program it's for Unix *and* requires POSIX APIxs, and even
>>> if it co
On 2009 Feb 25, at 5:23, John Lato wrote:
Brandon Allbery wrote:
I have to second this; I'm a Unix sysadmin, 98% of the time if I'm
writing a program it's for Unix *and* requires POSIX APIxs, and even
if it could apply to Windows the program needed there would be very
significantly different. A
Jonathan Cast wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 10:23 +, John Lato wrote:
>> 4. Cross-platform concerns are something that responsible developers
>> need to consider, just like localization and i18n. I.e., why
>> *shouldn't* you think of that?
>
> Sorry, wtf? I have a *responsibility* to desig
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 10:23 +, John Lato wrote:
> 4. Cross-platform concerns are something that responsible developers
> need to consider, just like localization and i18n. I.e., why
> *shouldn't* you think of that?
Sorry, wtf? I have a *responsibility* to design software for a
miserably poo
Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On 2009 Feb 21, at 20:47, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 07:25 -0700, John A. De Goes wrote:
>>> Not showing platform-specific packages by default *might* make
>>> package
>>> writers more likely to develop cross-platform packages. We've heard
>>> many times
wren ng thornton wrote:
> Though, I think it might be easier to have an icon next to the search
> hits, rather than segregating by platform--- since
> segregating/sectioning runs counter to relevance ranking.
>
While OTOH, this approach might rank low-level POSIX/Windoze libraries
higher than c
wren ng thornton wrote:
Lacking a wiki account,
~wren
From HWN:
HaskellWiki Accounts. Ashley Yakeley can [12]create a HaskellWiki
account for anyone who wants one (account creation has been disabled as
a spam-fighting measure).
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.general/16846
Pe
Achim Schneider wrote:
Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
> I still prefer showing all platform results sorted into separate
> sections with headers, but understand that I am in the minority.
You aren't alone. Labelling them prominently with POSIX, UNIX, Linux,
*BSD, OSX resp. Windoze is a Good Thing: Th
Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
> I still prefer showing all platform results sorted into separate
> sections with headers, but understand that I am in the minority.
>
You aren't alone. Labelling them prominently with POSIX, UNIX, Linux,
*BSD, OSX resp. Windoze is a Good Thing: That way, noone has to dig
29 matches
Mail list logo
