That's bad Hecate. We need GHC to be fun to work with, not a pain.
Can you be (much) more specific? The more concrete the problem, the more
likely we can address it.
e.g. What if you don't use HLS? Or maybe Hadrian is building much more
than you need? It would be super helpful to have more information. There
may be things we can't reasonably address (e.g. make a small, light,
non-optimising compiler instead, throwing away most of the code base) but I
bet that sheer size isn't the only factor.
Thanks!
Simon
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 17:21, Hécate
Hello ghc-devs,
I hadn't made significant contributions to the GHC code base in a while, until a few days ago, where I discovered that my computer wasn't able to sustain running the test suite, nor handle HLS well.
Whether it is my OS automatically killing the process due to oom-killer or just the fact that I don't have a war machine, I find it too bad and I'm frankly discouraged. This is not the first time such feedback emerges, as the documentation task force for the base library was unable to properly onboard some people from third-world countries who do not have access to hardware we'd consider "standard" in western Europe or some parts of North America. Or at least "standard" until even my standard stuff didn't cut it anymore.
So yeah, I'll stay around but I'm afraid I'm going to have to focus on projects for which the feedback loop is not on the scale of hours , as this is a hobby project.
Hope this will open some eyes.
Cheers, Hécate
-- Hécate ✨ 🐦: @TechnoEmpress IRC: Hecate WWW: https://glitchbra.in RUN: BSD
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs