All, I think we should remove unmaintained or refocused implementations from the haskell.org front page. This would mean removing: YHC - unmaintained, hasn't built for me in a while LHC - Not a standalone compiler these days - perhaps should be linked as a GHC subproject? Other than those I'd propose NHC but I'm guessing that would get some pushback (even though it currently doesn't build for me). Before anyone brings up HUGS I'll just say that 1) it is used 2) it builds 3) at least it's been updated more recently than the Haskell langauge. Thomas
thomas.dubuisson:
All, I think we should remove unmaintained or refocused implementations from the haskell.org front page. This would mean removing: YHC - unmaintained, hasn't built for me in a while LHC - Not a standalone compiler these days - perhaps should be linked as a GHC subproject?
Other than those I'd propose NHC but I'm guessing that would get some pushback (even though it currently doesn't build for me). Before anyone brings up HUGS I'll just say that 1) it is used 2) it builds 3) at least it's been updated more recently than the Haskell langauge.
I guess we just acknowledge that all implementations are not equal, and for newbies we strongly recommend GHC + Haskell Platform. For reference, we point to a page listing all implementations. This follows convention (i.e. Python, Ruby only point to the canonical impls, not the various forks). -- Don
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Thomas
DuBuisson
All, I think we should remove unmaintained or refocused implementations from the haskell.org front page. This would mean removing: YHC - unmaintained, hasn't built for me in a while LHC - Not a standalone compiler these days - perhaps should be linked as a GHC subproject?
Other than those I'd propose NHC but I'm guessing that would get some pushback (even though it currently doesn't build for me). Before anyone brings up HUGS I'll just say that 1) it is used 2) it builds 3) at least it's been updated more recently than the Haskell langauge.
Thomas
What about UHC and JHC? They're both maintained (in their varying degrees), but I don't think they can do anything but pure Haskell '98*, and I dunno whether they could even compile the Cabal packages which are/depend only on Haskell '98. What should our criterion be? Just maintained? Maintained and at least able to compile Haskell '98 source? Maintained, able to compile Haskell '98, and also the pure Haskell '98 subset of Hackage? I prefer the last triplet since it's the best for newbies and the minimum necessary for practicality beyond rolling everything oneself, but perhaps that's too strict for everyone else. * by which I mean Haskell '98, the FFI, and hierarchical modules -- gwern
participants (3)
-
Don Stewart -
Gwern Branwen -
Thomas DuBuisson