I do agree that Safe Haskell would be useful even if it was only used for
enforcing type safety and avoiding accidental use of unsafe features, but the
paper [1] makes it quite clear that one of the main goals is to safely execute
untrusted code:
"Safe Haskell makes it possible to confine and safely execute untrusted,
possibly malicious code. By strictly enforcing types, Safe Haskell allows a
variety of different policies from API sandboxing to information-flow control
to be implemented easily as monads.
[..]
We use Safe Haskell to implement an online Haskell interpreter that can
securely execute arbitrary untrusted code with no overhead."
Cheers, Jaro
[1] https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/terei:safe-haskell.pdf
On 13-01-2023 18:06, Carter Schonwald wrote:
Indeed type safety is exactly what it’s for! The other notions of safety were
never part of the goals. And it was designed so that the end user could decide
which codes they deem trustworthy.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM davean <dav...@xkcd.com
<mailto:dav...@xkcd.com>> wrote:
The only part of Safe Haskell I ever really cared about was type safety.
That's what matters, I think.
I've wanted to use it a number of times and played with it, but it's never
actually managed to become an important part of anything for me.
So take that as you will. I'd love it if it worked well, its issues have
limited what I attempt, but at the end of the day it's never hurt me too
bad to not have it.
-davean
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 7:14 AM Tom Ellis
<tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2...@jaguarpaw.co.uk
<mailto:tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2...@jaguarpaw.co.uk>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:33:04PM -0700, Chris Smith wrote:
> This conversation reminds me of a parable I encountered somewhere,
in which
> someone declares "I don't understand why this decision was ever
made, and I
> we should change it", and someone responds, "No, if you don't
understand
> the decision was made, then you don't know enough to change it. If
you
> learn why it was decided that way in the first place, then you will
have
> the understanding to decide whether to change it."
That parable is Chesterton's fence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
<http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
<http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
