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/
The Python source distribution has long maintained the philosophy of "batteries included" -- having a rich and versatile standard library which is immediately available, without making the user download separate packages.
So in other words, the Python guys knew that an approach like Haskell
Platform would never work well, and so they didn't do it. Instead
they built one big excellent standard library. I was confused by Mr
Allbery's statements, because I know what "batteries included" means,
and I could never think of Haskell doing that and having it rejected
by newbies. Newbies would love it.
That is what we should do, but it seems like consensus is
unfortunately difficult to find.
Having a standard set of packages that ossify and find their place in
the museum of Haskell history is absolutely _not_ what python did.
I'm talking about having a good base library. Now, this topic has
been rehashed time and time again. We should do new-base, a radically
new base-5. It will take work, it will take consensus. Do we have
what it takes?
-Michael
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Francesco Ariis
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 07:49:57PM -0700, Michael Sloan wrote:
Do you have a link? I am not psychic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_Platform _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.