In case anyway was worried, I *have* been following this thread, and
purposely not sticking my nose in to see what people's opinions are.
I've really appreciated the discussion; let me give my overall
response to everything:
It's good to remember that a user can always add whatever information
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On this one you may call be biased, but I think keeping Happstack and
Yesod on their own makes perfect sense. If I were an employer looking
to hire someone to work on a project, I would be looking to see that
they can
OK, after reviewing the list again, here's some more that are on the
chopping block, given the new outlook we've been establishing here.
Speak up if you want it saved:
Denotational design
Programming using Arrows
Transactional business applications development
Categorical Programming
On Thu, Oct
My $.02 follows:
From: Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com
There's only two skills which I think absolutely must go:
Other languages I know: C# .NET, XSLT, Microsoft SQL Server, XML, SQL,
CSS, C, C++, Java, HTML, Visual Basic Script, Pascal, Rexx, Basic and
assembler
tool building
On 20 October 2010 21:38, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
Cabal, packaging, build and distribution tools
This should be two categories: Cabal internals and Software
packaging/distribution tools. Keep Cabal internals, possibly keep the
other
What does Cabal internals refer to? Actually
On 20 October 2010 21:52, Henning Thielemann
lemm...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, John Lato wrote:
Mathematics
I'd be interested in how many Haskellers refer to Category Theory here, and
how many to other mathematical subjects. :-)
I for one refer to other stuff;
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2010 21:38, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
Cabal, packaging, build and distribution tools
This should be two categories: Cabal internals and Software
packaging/distribution tools.
On 20 October 2010 12:30, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
Again, Tool Authoring is too broad to be useful.
Who are the skills lists for?
Recruiters, other Haskellers to form strike forces, something else?
For the recruiters I think they are somewhat obscure unless Well-Typed
or Galois
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
Algorithmic Problem Solving
I think this needs to go, because I'm really having a hard time
imagining any programmer who doesn't do this.
High Assurance Software Development
This sounds vague to me and/or the same as
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.uk wrote:
Robotics and Automation
Would be tempted to drop Automation from here.
That name was deliberately chosen, and is appropriate for people in the area,
http://www.ieee-ras.org/
I have my own opinions on a lot of these
I just want to throw out 2 extreme case solutions to think about while this
problem doesn't really seem to be heading anywhere:
1) Drop the skills options in favor of the simple text box already in use.
This would of course would have a big impact on attempting to search for
haskellers.
2) A
On 10/20/10 9:12 AM, Anthony Cowley wrote:
We don't want people
outside of an area of interest governing name choices that lessen the
value of the tags.
To be honest, when the thread first came up, I was afraid NLP (or AG)
would end up on the cutting block because of that...
As a strawman
2010/10/18 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
...I thought *I* was the only person who's ever heard of Rexx?
... and thanks to you, I now know some people here have heard of Amiga :)
David.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Alright, adding skills is now only possible by an admin. In the place
where we previously had add a skill, we now have request a new
skill. That's the easy part. Now we need to determine which skills
stay, and which ones go. I think the vast majority of them are fine,
so I'll leave them at the end
Hey JP,
It's a tough question you're asking. I think areas directly applicable
with Haskell, such as bioinformatics, games, physics simulations, are
a pretty easy yes. Some more complicated things would be related
skills, such as knowing other programming languages, system
administration, etc. I
On 18/10/2010 09:59 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:
On 18/10/10 21:56, Andrew Coppin wrote:
...I thought *I* was the only person who's ever heard of Rexx?
Every amiga user is very likely to have heard of rexx, as a close
relative to it was included in AmigaOS at some point.
...and I had of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/10 13:09 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 18/10/2010 09:59 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:
On 18/10/10 21:56, Andrew Coppin wrote:
...I thought *I* was the only person who's ever heard of Rexx?
Every amiga user is very likely to have heard of rexx,
On 10/19/10 9:32 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
There are 11 skills I'm leaning towards dropping, all because they
fall in the too vague/too general category. Your input is requested on
these. They are:
Attribute Grammar
Categorical Programming
Denotational design
Proving observational equivalence
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on
haskellers.comand let them police the skills list? It's become rather
messy, with overly
broad terms like Mathematics in it, as well as overly specific ones like
Other languages I know: C# .NET, XSLT, Microsoft SQL Server, XML, SQL,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Daniel Peebles wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on haskellers.com and
let them
police the skills list? It's become rather messy, with overly broad terms like
Mathematics in it, as well as overly specific ones like Other languages I
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on haskellers.com
and let them police the skills list? It's become rather messy, with overly
broad terms like Mathematics in it, as well as overly specific
On 18/10/2010 07:47 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on
haskellers.com http://haskellers.com and let them police the skills
list? It's become rather messy, with overly broad terms like
Mathematics in it, as well as overly specific ones
On 18/10/10 21:56, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 18/10/2010 07:47 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on
haskellers.com http://haskellers.com and let them police the skills
list? It's become rather messy, with overly broad terms like
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on haskellers.com
and let them police the skills list? It's become rather messy,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 18/10/2010 07:47 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on haskellers.com and
let
them police the skills list? It's become rather messy, with overly broad terms
like Mathematics in it, as well
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Might it be worthwhile to take the elected superusers on
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com
28 matches
Mail list logo
