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
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.
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 of some
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
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
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
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
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 blessed
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
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 (or
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
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, on a
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 more
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
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
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 library is
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
| 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 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
|
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
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
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
Chris Smith cdsmith at 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
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, that
24 matches
Mail list logo
