I think code-based weighting should not be considered at all. There's a non-trivial amount of proprietary code that wouldn't be counted, and likely can't be accounted for accurately. I have some unknown amount of code at my previous employer (which does include Monad instances) that now has to be maintained by others. I may have said +1 (and I'm reconsidering), but the current maintainers probably don't want the extra make-work this involves.
There's an argument that this proposal involves very little up-front breakage. This is true but disingenuous, because the breakage will still happen in the future unless changes are made and committed. The entire maintenance load should be considered, not just the immediate load.
Bryan, nothing I've seen since I started using Haskell makes me think that the libraries committee or ghc devs value back compatibility much at all. My favorite example is RecursiveDo, which was deprecated in favor of DoRec, only for that to be reversed in the next ghc release. Of course that was more irritating than breaking, but it's indicative of the general value placed on maintenance programming.
+1
I think this idea is good and should not be taken lightly. I'm a newcomer to the community and currently hold a grand total of *zero* open source contributions. Obviously, I would like to change this soon, but I think it is very *unfair* and makes absolutely no sense to have the standard one person one vote rule for decisions involving the libraries.
Let the code produced vote. Maybe weight them by downloads?
Dimitri
On 10/5/15 9:12 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Perhaps we should weigh the +1 and -1s in this thread with the number of lines of Haskell written by the voter? ;)
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gershom B <gershomb@gmail.com> wrote:
On October 5, 2015 at 10:59:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan (bos@serpentine.com) wrote:
> I would like to suggest that the bar for breaking all existing libraries, books, papers,
> and lecture notes should be very high; and that the benefit associated with such a breaking
> change should be correspondingly huge.
>
My understanding of the argument here, which seems to make sense to me, is that the AMP already introduced a significant breaking change with regards to monads. Books and lecture notes have already not caught up to this, by and large. Hence, by introducing a further change, which _completes_ the general AMP project, then by the time books and lecture notes are all updated, they will be able to tell a much nicer story than the current one?
As for libraries, it has been pointed out, I believe, that without CPP one can write instances compatible with AMP, and also with AMP + MRP. One can also write code, sans CPP, compatible with pre- and post- AMP.
So the reason for choosing to not do MRP simultaneous with AMP was precisely to allow a gradual migration path where, sans CPP, people could write code compatible with the last three versions of GHC, as the general criteria has been.
So without arguing the necessity or not, I just want to weigh in with a technical opinion that if this goes through, my _estimation_ is that there will be a smooth and relatively painless migration period, the sky will not fall, good teaching material will remain good, those libraries that bitrot will tend to do so for a variety of reasons more significant than this, etc.
It is totally reasonable to have a discussion on whether this change is worth it at all. But let’s not overestimate the cost of it just to further tip the scales :-)
—gershom
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe