> .. a few people mention that they prefer the
> "global package database" style.  I'd like to improve my understanding
> of why people prefer that style.

I had/have a strong preference for the global package database.

a) teaching. no longer relevant but when it was beyond the points already raised:
- simplified helping students when we were clearly using the same codebase
- assessment: easier to set and advise when you know exactly what 
libraries/versions the class  will be using. It was also easier to set up by passing
code requirements to support staff before term. they would ensure tools
and a list of required libraries were installed.


b) research, 
- I often found it helpful to move between ghci and my program text,
testing ideas or checking types in ghci then copying and pasting into the file
-   ghc-pkg plus the Haskell doc provided a usable and helpful foundation for 
work

c) I saw no reason to try an alternative version of working nor any evidence 
that one would make my life any easier

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 5:58 PM Johannes Waldmann <johannes.waldmann@htwk-leipzig.de> wrote:
> .. a few people mention that they prefer the
> "global package database" style.  I'd like to improve my understanding
> of why people prefer that style.

Teaching.

Reduce storage, and save students the extra work and distraction.
https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7172

same question, with discussion of
possible work-around with "shared local" database:
https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/6515

I will need this in two week's time ..

- J.W.
_______________________________________________
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.


--
David Duke
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
School of Computing University of Leeds UK