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 <hecate@glitchbra.in> wrote:
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