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. We've heard many times someone say, "I don't know if it works on Windows, never really thought of that."
Um, why *should* I think of that?
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. And we have a Windows group for that.
I completely disagree, for the following reasons: 1. It's often easier (and almost never more difficult) to design for cross-platform support from the beginning than to add it later. 2. As of now, the "Windows Group" seems to be mostly Duncan. And while I greatly appreciate all the time and effort he continues to put into Windows support, he's got a lot to do and could use some help. If you can't help by joining the Windows group, at least you could make your own packages cross-platform. 3. It contributes to the "Avoid success at all costs" mantra often attributed to Haskell. I'm pretty sure that some people prefer this, but many (including myself) consider it at best misguided, and possibly harmful. 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? In some situations, it is true that a project is particularly tied to a Posix (or Windows) feature, and it wouldn't make sense to attempt a cross-platform version. If you're a Unix sysadmin and you use Haskell, that may be true most or all of the time. But for many packages, including most packages on hackage, it should be given consideration. Cheers, John Lato