On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsloan@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL! Oh man, this guy must be pulling my leg... Haskell platform was
never a batteries included plan.  It was a plan for package
bureaucracy, mixed in with a broken installation approach.  Sorry, but
that was not a good enough attempt at emulating python's "batteries
included" . From https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0206/

Wrong.

Its enemies did a very thorough hatchet job. But they did let on their real intent: "batteries included" meant they can't force people to install their new incompatible batteries whenever they decide. "Batteries included" was exactly what they did NOT want, and do not want, because it limits them; unless, of course, they are the only source of the batteries.

So now we have a battery store run by a company, which also ships its own build tool that works primarily with that store, and requires you to specify which generation of batteries to use --- and still runs into conflicts when someone wants to mix different versions of things because they're building the tool with the parts they need instead of the ones authorized by the store.

Granted, a largeish chunk of the problem is that putting anything into the "batteries included" package space (ghc global packages) makes using any other versions of those packages scary at best. This is still a problem for the packages that ghc itself uses, and are therefore difficult to upgrade without replacing ghc.

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com                                  ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net