John Lato jwl...@gmail.com 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.
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:
Do not
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 fogotten
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net 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
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 otherwise,
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 j...@n-brain.net 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, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Thomas DuBuisson
thomas.dubuis...@gmail.com 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
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
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 design
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.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu 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
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Cast
jonathancc...@fastmail.fm 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?
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
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 good
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
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:
Thomas DuBuisson thomas.dubuis...@gmail.com 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.
17 matches
Mail list logo
