Quoth FFT: > My general null hypothesis is, as Alec Baldwin put it, that a loser is > a loser, or a buggy project is buggy.
I can't see the world in such black and white terms. GHC has strengths and weaknesses, as do other projects. GHC is changing over time, as are other projects. Formally verified software is still rare. Most of the useful stuff lies somewhere between "buggy" and "bug-free". > If GHC is robust overall (which I'm yet to find out), why is the > installation so broken? History. Limited resources. Complexity and diversity of target environments. Moving targets. Day jobs. Of course, you have to determine what your needs and standards are for any product you use. Regards, John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
