This sounds awesome, I'm totally behind it. Thank you Gershom! On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 10:09 AM Gershom B <gersh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is a very good point being made. We should disengangle > the installer question from the “getting started” question. Someone > on reddit even proposed having two seperate pages entirely. > > A getting started page that promoted a stack centric workflow for > beginners as a good “default path” would be reasonable in my eyes, and > certainly worth discussing. Certainly if it let us lay the downloads > page to rest with a single option for a minimal installer (with > perhaps slightly different branding as discussed on a ticket I linked > earlier — “Haskell Toolchain” or the like) that provided ghc, stack > and cabal all, then I think that would be a very good way to go. > > That way Nicolas and others who wanted to direct people to the > downloads page, and then wanted to teach them with one sort of > approach would be able to do so, people who wanted to direct people to > the downloads page, and teach them with a stack-based approach would > be able to do so, and people coming to the site directly could > immediately find a “getting started page” with a single approach that > got them up and running quickly, and that approach could well be > stack-oriented if that’s what people think gives the best experience > for that particular use case. > > (Again, I give the caveat I’m speaking just for myself here, and > thinking this through as an idea I’d like to hear others’ thoughts > on). > > —gershom > > > On August 31, 2016 at 5:48:41 PM, Nicolas Wu (nicolas...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi Paolo, > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:53 PM Paolo Giarrusso > > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I'm honestly confused what you're arguing. You say this decision isn't > > > for beginners, yet you propose offering the HP. So how should a > > > beginner install a package without first deciding whether to use > > > cabal-install or stack? Or can a beginner meaningfully be expected to > > > learn using both alternatives? > > > > > > > Sorry for not being clear, my bad. Hopefully I can clarify and elaborate > a > > bit more. > > > > I think a beginner doesn't usually make the choice of how to use > > GHC/stack/cabal by themselves; they are usually being instructed by > someone > > (or a resource) that has decided that for them. On that front I don't > think > > there's a singular best way to approach this; there's diversity in the > way > > people approach teaching and that's fine and healthy, there's also > > diversity in the way people learn and the goals they have with the > language > > and that's fine and healthy too. We should be supporting people who want > to > > learn the language as well as people who want to contribute to teaching. > We > > should respect diversity in those roles; if someone wants their students > to > > use only stack then by all means they can do so, that shouldn't stop > others > > from using ghc or ghci directly. > > > > For instance, if a beginner is just trying to run small examples they see > > on a blog, then maybe all they need is a call to ghci. If they're > learning > > about making a simple binary they might want ghc. If they want to have a > > whole managed project, perhaps they're after either stack or cabal. The > > point is that they're usually guided by something, and those guides do > > differ on what they prefer and recommend. The default download should > > easily support these different modes of learning and teaching. > > > > > > > Also, do both tools have their merits *for beginners*? We're talking > > > of cabal as-is, not of the ongoing work on new-build. > > > > > > > I'm talking about having a default that bundles tools like ghc, cabal, > and > > stack, since these are the main tools our community has for compiling and > > executing Haskell code. I don't want to force people into one of > > these--whether that be students or educators. In all cases the default > > download recommendation should support all of these since they are the > > mainstream tools we use. To avoid confusion I think there should be only > > one recommended option on the main download page (and here the HP minimal > > seems to satisfy this, and stack seems to preclude this). The download > page > > should also have a link to other resources (such as the HP Full, stack > > only, and other distributions like Haskell for Mac) on another page. > > > > Since there seems to be confusion about how the committee comes to a > > consensus I should note that at this point I'm only speaking for myself > > here. This is just my recommendation, and I'm open and willing to listen > to > > other views before considering what I think is best. I am not usually > > overtly vocal in these discussions, but I do read what is said and form > my > > own opinions. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
