On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The choice boils down to whether you want stack to manage your GHC > installation or not. > > I personally find it distasteful. This has been the biggest blocker for > me using stack, it wants to control more of my workflow than I want to give > it, leading to an overlap of responsibilities. > > (I do use stack, but only with external GHC installations, and I often get > into a mess when it tries to download another GHC) > I have also been using stack with external GHCs up until now, but I have never had this issue. > Having said that, is it better for new users to delegate the GHC > installation to stack? I don't know. It certainly has the downside that > you can't just type "ghci" and get a prompt. > > The world seems simpler when it consists of > - GHC installations > - build tools that use your GHC installations and manage local package > building > > But when my build tool manages my GHC installations, there's now a layer > of abstraction in the way of GHC and I can't figure out how to interact > directly with GHC any more. Also I can't use cabal (which I often do). > > So, I'd argue for HP minimal to be the default download option. By all > means recommend stack as the default build tool - I'm sure it's less > problematic for most people to get Stackage by default, and cabal isn't set > up to use Stackage out of the box. > > Can't we get rid of HP Full? I don't see a use for that any more. > > Cheers > Simon > > > On 29 August 2016 at 16:29, Nicolas Wu <nicolas...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I think having multiple options is confusing to beginners, and so I'd >> like to see a single download option on the download page. >> >> For me it's important that we have a way for beginners to use tools like >> ghc and ghci on the command line directly in order to run small throw-away >> programs. >> >> The decision about how to manage projects and their dependencies should >> be open and isn't for beginners, whether that be using stack or cabal: both >> have their merits, and I don't want to push one over the other. The default >> installation should provide both of these as well as other tools core to >> building ghc. >> >> As such, I'm in favour of having the HP as the only option. >> >> Nick >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:50 AM Jason Dagit <dag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I just realized that the Minimal installer listed first on the Downloads >>> page (https://www.haskell.org/downloads) is deprecated and "dead". This >>> creates an unfortunate situation where our top suggested way to get haskell >>> immediately tells the user it's dead. >>> >>> I think that we should remove mention of the minimal installer ASAP on >>> the grounds that the HP now comes in minimal and full variants. >>> >>> Furthermore, I would like to make the recommendation that we list the HP >>> above other methods as even the minimal HP installer ships with stack (at >>> least on windows it does). >>> >>> Between the two changes, I think the first one is crucial and the second >>> one is merely reasonable. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-community mailing list >>> Haskell-community@haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-community mailing list >> Haskell-community@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-community mailing list > Haskell-community@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
