On 04/23/2012 12:03 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
However, until better technical support is implemented (not just for GHC, but also jhc, UHC,...) it's best to follow social practice.
Wren, I am new to Haskell and not aware of all of the conventions. Is there a place where I can find information on these social practices? Are they documented some place?
However, centralization is prone to bottlenecks and systemic failure. As such, while it would be nice to ensure that a given module is provided by only one package, there is no mechanism in place to enforce this (except at compile time for the code that links the conflicting modules together).
From someone new to the community, it seems that yes centralization has its issues, but it also seems that practices could be put in place that minimize the bottlenecks and systemic failures.
Unless I greatly misunderstand the challenges, there seem to be lot of ways to approach this problem and none of them are new. We all use systems that are composed of many modules neatly combined into complete systems. Linux distributions do this well. So does Java. Maybe should borough from their experiences and think about how we put packages together and what mechanisms we need to resolve inter-package dependencies.
Am I missing something that makes this problem harder than other systems and languages? Is anyone currently working on the packaging and distribution issues? If not, does anyone else want to work on it?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
