On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell@gmail.com> wrote:
(Note: I'm one of the developers/designers of cabal sandboxes.)

...and I'm one of the developers / maintainers of cabal-dev :)

I'll echo Johan's comments -- cabal sandboxes have the level of integration with cabal that cabal-dev could only aspire to; and as such, cabal sandboxes can do it *right* :) (add-source and cabal repl are two great examples of this already).

Cabal-dev is also not likely to be maintained very much longer, since cabal sandboxes solve the problem that cabal-dev addressed.  I like to think that cabal-dev, capri, and other similar haskell sandboxing tools demonstrated that the concept was sound and useful, but cabal sandbox has taken the idea and refined it to be properly integrated and much more reliable.

tl/dr; I *strongly* suggest everyone start transitioning from cabal-dev to cabal sandboxes. 

--Rogan
 

Cabal sandboxes were developed after cabal-dev and was generally an effort to bring sandboxes to the masses by integrating them into cabal proper. There are a couple of benefits to this integration:

 * New features are designed with sandboxes in mind. 
 * We can generally get a smoother integration with rest of Cabal.
 * We support add-source deps as links rather than copies (see the docs).



On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Graham Berks <graham@fatlazycat.com> wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of why you would use one over the other ??

Thanks
Graham




_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe