On 9/3/07, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, I am old enough to actually remember life before MS and I can
> also remember what's happened to the industry at large and to various
> the organisations I've worked in and had dealings with over the last
> 25 years or so.
Fair enough.
__
Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 9/3/07, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The popularity of MS
Winders or Office Suite are the obvious examples. We all know why these
are used on 95% or whatever of the worlds PCs, and it has nothing
whatever to do with quality.
Oh come on. You've been reading waaa
On 9/3/07, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The popularity of MS
> Winders or Office Suite are the obvious examples. We all know why these
> are used on 95% or whatever of the worlds PCs, and it has nothing
> whatever to do with quality.
Oh come on. You've been reading waaayyy too much Sla
2007/9/2, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Other meaningless measures that have been suggested are the rate of
> patch submissions of the number of developers involved. I seem to
> remember someone recently suggesting that libraries that score highly
> in on this regard should be elevated to "bles
Hugh Perkins wrote:
A really simple way to track the "quality" of a package is to display
the number of downloads.
A posteriorae, this works great in other download sites.
We can easily hypothesize about why a download count gives a decent
indication of some measure of quality:
- more people do
Sven Panne wrote:
> ... and even more easily hypothesize why this is not always a good
indication:
> High-qualitiy standard libraries which are packaged with GHC/Hugs/...
will probably almost never be downloaded separately.
Solution: change GHC/Hugs so it submits (via a webservice, stored in a
Sven Panne wrote:
... and even more easily hypothesize why this is not always a good indication:
High-qualitiy standard libraries which are packaged with GHC/Hugs/... will
probably almost never be downloaded separately.
Solution: change GHC/Hugs so it submits usage counters of which
librarie
On 9/2/07, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> High-qualitiy standard libraries which are packaged with GHC/Hugs/... will
> probably almost never be downloaded separately.
Good point. Note however that if someone is hunting for a library,
it's generally because it's not already bundled with t
On Sunday 02 September 2007 03:29, Hugh Perkins wrote:
> A really simple way to track the "quality" of a package is to display
> the number of downloads.
>
> A posteriorae, this works great in other download sites.
>
> We can easily hypothesize about why a download count gives a decent
> indication
A really simple way to track the "quality" of a package is to display
the number of downloads.
A posteriorae, this works great in other download sites.
We can easily hypothesize about why a download count gives a decent
indication of some measure of quality:
- more people downloading it means mor
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 18:47 +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 19:39, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > [...]
> > The docs for those packages would be available for packages installed
> > via cabal (assuming the user did the optional haddock step) and would
> > link to each other.
>
> Well,
As a enthusiast Perl user over the years, I note that the CPAN and the
associated toolkit (the CPAN module, its shell, ExtUtils::MakeMaker
and Module::Build) is pretty good at this. It has it's share of cruft
(in fact a whole lot of it) but it's certainly better than most
solutions in this field in
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 19:39, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> [...]
> The docs for those packages would be available for packages installed
> via cabal (assuming the user did the optional haddock step) and would
> link to each other.
Well, on a normal Linux distro a user should *never* have to call cabal
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
When you install packages A,B,C, the documentation for A,B,C (and nothing
> else) ought to be locally available as an integrated whole, much as at
the GHC web site. I don't know whether Cabal does, or could do, that,
but it's surely what one would expect.
and would
> The problem with generating one of those is what manages it? What
> package would it belong to etc.
the same package that provides us with our interactive hackage prompt
rebuilding a central index will be a logical post-process for the
installation function
_
Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is missing from the local docs is a single integrated index page
> that lists all the modules and then links off to the various packages's
> docs like we have on the ghc website.
>
> The problem with generating one of those is what manages it? What
>
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:26 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | I see it as a really big deal that documentation becomes fragmented when
> | one is using many packages, so that it's harder to find what you want.
> | In fact, I'd classify that as the single biggest reason that I don't use
> | many
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:26:31PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | I see it as a really big deal that documentation becomes fragmented when
> | one is using many packages, so that it's harder to find what you want.
> | In fact, I'd classify that as the single biggest reason that I don't use
>
| I see it as a really big deal that documentation becomes fragmented when
| one is using many packages, so that it's harder to find what you want.
| In fact, I'd classify that as the single biggest reason that I don't use
| many packages now
When you install packages A,B,C, the documentation for
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:16:33AM -0600, Chris Smith wrote:
> If there could be built-in quality control in promoting certain
> packages, that would be great.
it needs to be more fine grained. a new version of a package may
indeed rollback some positive attributes (stability for example) that
a
> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:15 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > - Package X is "blessed"; lots of people have argued over its design,
> > it's stable, widely used, and actively maintained. Changes to this
> > package goes through a quality-control process.
> > Then, in effect, the "standard li
Chris Smith wrote:
Can someone clarify what's going on with the standard library in
Haskell?
As of right now, I can download, say, GHC from haskell.org/ghc and get a
set of libraries with it. I can visit
http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/, linked from the
haskell.org home pa
On 2007-07-30, Dave Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My pet example is a PDF library. No language should have its own PDF
> library, when Postscript is so easy to write, and "Ghostscript" is a
> cross-platform conversion tool maintained by thousands of our best and
> brightest.
Except, of course
Chris Smith twu.net> writes:
> Can someone clarify what's going on with the standard library in
> Haskell?
...
> sites for the thousandth time before realizing that so-and-so's GUI
> library hasn't actually been touched since they finished their class
Short answer: Our system is very democrat
24 matches
Mail list logo
