ANN: #haskell-in-depth IRC channel

Hi folks. As I've been daft enough to get a few things rolling, it looks
like it's fallen on me to announce the new IRC channel,
#haskell-in-depth.
#haskell has been a roaring success over the last few years, as Don has
repeatedly pointed out. Unfortunately that roar is starting to make it
hard for some to participate - there's so much traffic that it can be
difficult to fit an additional conversation in. We're starting to hit
the limits as to how far one channel can take us, and that means we need
to explore ways to divide up traffic.
Actually, this isn't entirely new - a number of years ago now,
#haskell-blah was formed as a space for off-topic (and sometimes
less-than-worksafe) conversation among #haskell regulars. We also
created #haskell-overflow, but it doesn't see much use except among some
of the cabal implementors because it's hard to know when to take the
conversation you're currently in to -overflow.
We need channels that people start their conversations in, not ones to
send people to! So we're trying a space for in-depth discussion. The new
channel is open to everyone, just like #haskell. But just as we're
hoping for certain kinds of discussion, there're others we want to
avoid. If you need to know how to use monads so you can do IO,
#haskell-in-depth isn't the place. On the other hand, if you want to
discuss how Haskell's monads compare to the category theory or what the
category theory can tell us about how individual monads relate to the
language as a whole, -in-depth is a good place! In particular, we're
hoping that the kind of category theory discussions that give the
mistaken impression you actually need to know CT will increasingly live
in #haskell-in-depth.
We're not after a theory channel though - architectural discussion,
compiler implementation, possible type system extensions, library
design, all are good subjects.
Anyway, I shouldn't ramble on for too long here - #haskell-in-depth is
open for business and we look forward to seeing you there!
--
Philippa Cowderoy

Well-done! I've said for many months that we need a channel like this!
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Philippa Cowderoy
Hi folks. As I've been daft enough to get a few things rolling, it looks like it's fallen on me to announce the new IRC channel, #haskell-in-depth.
#haskell has been a roaring success over the last few years, as Don has repeatedly pointed out. Unfortunately that roar is starting to make it hard for some to participate - there's so much traffic that it can be difficult to fit an additional conversation in. We're starting to hit the limits as to how far one channel can take us, and that means we need to explore ways to divide up traffic.
Actually, this isn't entirely new - a number of years ago now, #haskell-blah was formed as a space for off-topic (and sometimes less-than-worksafe) conversation among #haskell regulars. We also created #haskell-overflow, but it doesn't see much use except among some of the cabal implementors because it's hard to know when to take the conversation you're currently in to -overflow.
We need channels that people start their conversations in, not ones to send people to! So we're trying a space for in-depth discussion. The new channel is open to everyone, just like #haskell. But just as we're hoping for certain kinds of discussion, there're others we want to avoid. If you need to know how to use monads so you can do IO, #haskell-in-depth isn't the place. On the other hand, if you want to discuss how Haskell's monads compare to the category theory or what the category theory can tell us about how individual monads relate to the language as a whole, -in-depth is a good place! In particular, we're hoping that the kind of category theory discussions that give the mistaken impression you actually need to know CT will increasingly live in #haskell-in-depth.
We're not after a theory channel though - architectural discussion, compiler implementation, possible type system extensions, library design, all are good subjects.
Anyway, I shouldn't ramble on for too long here - #haskell-in-depth is open for business and we look forward to seeing you there!
-- Philippa Cowderoy
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:15:48 +0000, Philippa Cowderoy
[...]
If you need to know how to use monads so you can do IO, #haskell-in-depth isn't the place. On the other hand, if you want to discuss how Haskell's monads compare to the category theory or what the category theory can tell us about how individual monads relate to the language as a whole, -in-depth is a good place! In particular, we're hoping that the kind of category theory discussions that give the mistaken impression you actually need to know CT will increasingly live in #haskell-in-depth.
We're not after a theory channel though - architectural discussion, compiler implementation, possible type system extensions, library design, all are good subjects.
Great work! I look forward to participating sometime in the near future. In that case, for people who need to know how to use monads so that they can do IO, why not create a #haskell-beginners channel? I have occasionally read posts of some users who were hesitant to participate in #haskell until they learned enough to keep up with the discussions there. If neither #haskell nor #haskell-in-depth is appropriate, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a Haskell-beginners-specific channel? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:32 +0900, Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:15:48 +0000, Philippa Cowderoy
wrote: [...]
If you need to know how to use monads so you can do IO, #haskell-in-depth isn't the place. On the other hand, if you want to discuss how Haskell's monads compare to the category theory or what the category theory can tell us about how individual monads relate to the language as a whole, -in-depth is a good place! In particular, we're hoping that the kind of category theory discussions that give the mistaken impression you actually need to know CT will increasingly live in #haskell-in-depth.
We're not after a theory channel though - architectural discussion, compiler implementation, possible type system extensions, library design, all are good subjects.
Great work! I look forward to participating sometime in the near future.
In that case, for people who need to know how to use monads so that they can do IO, why not create a #haskell-beginners channel? I have occasionally read posts of some users who were hesitant to participate in #haskell until they learned enough to keep up with the discussions there. If neither #haskell nor #haskell-in-depth is appropriate, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a Haskell-beginners-specific channel?
Asking any Haskell-related question at any level is appropriate in #haskell, now as always. One of the implicit goals of the new channel is to minimize such "intimidation." The explicit goal of the new channel is to increase the newbie friendliness of #haskell.

We explicitly want to avoid a newbie "trap" See the summary of the discussion that lead to the channel creation http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/IRC_channel/Phase_2 -- Don DekuDekuplex:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:15:48 +0000, Philippa Cowderoy
wrote: [...]
If you need to know how to use monads so you can do IO, #haskell-in-depth isn't the place. On the other hand, if you want to discuss how Haskell's monads compare to the category theory or what the category theory can tell us about how individual monads relate to the language as a whole, -in-depth is a good place! In particular, we're hoping that the kind of category theory discussions that give the mistaken impression you actually need to know CT will increasingly live in #haskell-in-depth.
We're not after a theory channel though - architectural discussion, compiler implementation, possible type system extensions, library design, all are good subjects.
Great work! I look forward to participating sometime in the near future.
In that case, for people who need to know how to use monads so that they can do IO, why not create a #haskell-beginners channel? I have occasionally read posts of some users who were hesitant to participate in #haskell until they learned enough to keep up with the discussions there. If neither #haskell nor #haskell-in-depth is appropriate, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a Haskell-beginners-specific channel?
-- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Benjamin L. Russell
If neither #haskell nor #haskell-in-depth is appropriate, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a Haskell-beginners-specific channel?
The danger with that is the only people who go there are beginners looking for advice. Without advisers also, it would quickly wither. How has the beginners' mailing list worked out, in this regard? At least with a ML it's possible to set aside some part of the day to answering questions... the same is not really possible for 5-hour-old conversations on IRC. Cheers, D

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:35:03 +0000, Dougal Stanton
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Benjamin L. Russell
wrote: If neither #haskell nor #haskell-in-depth is appropriate, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a Haskell-beginners-specific channel?
The danger with that is the only people who go there are beginners looking for advice. Without advisers also, it would quickly wither.
How has the beginners' mailing list worked out, in this regard? At least with a ML it's possible to set aside some part of the day to answering questions... the same is not really possible for 5-hour-old conversations on IRC.
It seems to have been working out quite well. Last month, there were a total of 57 threads, including 192 messages in Haskell-Beginners. Most questions get responses within a few minutes. You can see the archives for last month at http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/2009-January/thread.html . -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^
participants (6)
-
Andrew Wagner
-
Benjamin L.Russell
-
Derek Elkins
-
Don Stewart
-
Dougal Stanton
-
Philippa Cowderoy