Re: Deprecating Safe Haskell, or heavily investing in it?

I think some flavor / iterations of lambda bot has used it for example. On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:44 PM Jaro Reinders wrote:

I do agree that Safe Haskell would be useful even if it was only used for enforcing type safety and avoiding accidental use of unsafe features, but the paper [1] makes it quite clear that one of the main goals is to safely execute untrusted code:

"Safe Haskell makes it possible to confine and safely execute untrusted, possibly malicious code. By strictly enforcing types, Safe Haskell allows a variety of different policies from API sandboxing to information-flow control to be implemented easily as monads. [..] We use Safe Haskell to implement an online Haskell interpreter that can securely execute arbitrary untrusted code with no overhead."

Cheers, Jaro

[1] https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/terei:safe-haskell.pdf

On 13-01-2023 18:06, Carter Schonwald wrote:

...

Indeed type safety is exactly what it’s for! The other notions of safety were never part of the goals. And it was designed so that the end user could decide which codes they deem trustworthy.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM davean mailto:davean@xkcd.com> wrote:

The only part of Safe Haskell I ever really cared about was type safety. That's what matters, I think.

I've wanted to use it a number of times and played with it, but it's never actually managed to become an important part of anything for me. So take that as you will. I'd love it if it worked well, its issues have limited what I attempt, but at the end of the day it's never hurt me too bad to not have it.

-davean

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 7:14 AM Tom Ellis mailto:tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:33:04PM -0700, Chris Smith wrote: > This conversation reminds me of a parable I encountered somewhere, in which > someone declares "I don't understand why this decision was ever made, and I > we should change it", and someone responds, "No, if you don't understand > the decision was made, then you don't know enough to change it. If you > learn why it was decided that way in the first place, then you will have > the understanding to decide whether to change it."

That parable is Chesterton's fence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence

...

<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence>

...

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs