On Windows, the reason I used to use the Platform was that it came with an installed network library, and installing the network library on Windows is a real pain (and often fails). Unfortunately it was incredibly brittle, a single attempt at upgrading network from some newer package usually trashed my Haskell install and required a wipe and restart.
Nowadays I use https://github.com/fpco/minghc which can actually install network, and I've had zero problems. I can get up to the platform with one invoke of cabal, and if someone decides to require a new network, it just works. I think the Platform now gives a worse user experience on Windows, so the ideas (or names) probably need migrating around. Thanks, Neil On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark Lentczner wrote: >> >> I'm wondering how we are all feeling about the platform these days.... >> >> I notice that in the new Haskell pages, the Platform is definitely not the >> recommended way to go: The main download pages suggests the compiler and >> base libraries as the first option - and the text for the Platform (second >> option) pretty much steers folks away from it. Of the per-OS download >> pages, only the Windows version even mentions it. >> >> Does this mean that we don't want to consider continuing with it? It is a >> lot of community effort to put out a Platform release - we shouldn't do it >> if we don't really want it. >> >> That said, I note that the other ways to "officially get" Haskell look, to >> my eye, very ad hoc. Many of the options involve multiple steps, and >> exactly what one is getting isn't clear. It hardly looks like there is now >> an "official, correct" way to setup Haskell. >> >> The Platform arose in an era before sandboxes and before curated library >> sets like Stackage and LTS. Last time we set direction was several years >> ago. These new features and development have clearly changed the landscape >> for use to reconsider what to do. >> >> >> I don't think the status quo for the Platform is now viable - mostly as >> evidenced by waning interest in maintaining it. I offer several ways we >> could proceed: >> >> *1) Abandon the Platform.* GHC is release in source and binary form. Other >> package various installers, with more or less things, for various OSes. >> >> *2) Slim the Platform.* Pare it back to GHC + base + a smaller set of >> "essential" libs + tools. Keeps a consistent build layout and installation >> mechanism for Haskell. >> >> *3) Re-conceive the Platform.* Take a very minimal install approach, >> coupled with close integration with a curated library set that makes it >> easy to have a rich canonical, stable environment. This was the core idea >> around my "GPS Haskell" thoughts from last September - but there would be >> much to work out in this direction. >> >> Thoughts? > > > Thanks a lot for your hard work on the platform! > > I myself am an avid user of the platform (OS X), because for me, it's the > easiest way to install Haskell on a new machine; I just did so the other > day. > > The only time when the platform seems to be a handicap is when a new version > of GHC is being released and I would have to update my packages. Usually, I > don't test them with the new version and rely on pull requests instead. > > > Best regards, > Heinrich Apfelmus > > -- > http://apfelmus.nfshost.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
