A new era begins for Haskell
haskell.org
haskell.org
> If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room
I'm definitely not in the wrong room when meeting others in the Haskell community.
is it possible that now would be a good time (just because it is a time when things seem to be changing) to simplify / clean up haskell? what i am wondering / asking is whether more recent additions to the language (type system) are generalisations of earlier features. in which case, maybe the earlier features could be dropped?
is anything like that possible or reasonable? it's a fairly old language, which has evolved a lot, and it stuck me it might be a question worth asking... (something like python 3 i guess, but a bit more meaty)
If you've not used Haskell in a decade, I think you'll find the language has changed significantly since then, but that sometimes the language disguises itself by choosing conservative language defaults that are maximally compatible. If you want to see how far Haskell has come it will require you to use a number of LANGUAGE pragmas to get the benefits of the most recent innovations.
Also, they don't like to change their name very often.
Seriously. It matters. Lisp has been Lisp for the past six decades or so. Therefore, someone who learned Lisp in the 1970s thinks that Lisp Is Lisp and therefore hasn't changed, except maybe for a few dialects. (After all, C and Java are just Algol dialects, right?)
The fact Clojure actually has a new name is likely more important to its success than anything else the language creator did for it.
"I don't know what the technical characteristics of the standard language for scientific and engineering computation in the year 2000 will be... but I know it will be called Fortran." John Backus
Now of course all communication links are still called ethernet, despite the lack of connection between 10Mb and gigabit, almost nothing in common bar the name.
No, that is usually the worst time. Don't pile change on change. That doesn't make it easier.
I really should take a look at the GHC source and see if there's anything I can chip in with. I might have some skills that I could help with, maybe looking at the LLVM backend or something that I'm at least a little familiar with.
I recently wrote an LLVM compiler backend for a toy language. The compiler was written in Haskell, of course (it isn't a coincidence that "research" languages are excellent for writing compilers). It's miles away from what GHC is but maybe I learned some relevant skills along the way that I could apply to GHC development.
Here's my compiler for anyone who is interested: https://github.com/rikusalminen/funfun/tree/uncurryllvm
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/14bvtz/the_end_of_a...
spj's email is wonderful and a great tribute to a fantastic developer, but I'm having a hard time seeing what exactly there is to rejoice about.
And reading deeper into that email, it's becoming clear to me that spj himself seems to be hinting that he is scaling down his involvement in Haskell as well...
It's not a great thing but I think even if SPJ left the community has enough of a critical mass we could keep things moving along. It would definitely slow things down for a couple years but it wouldn't be like Linux losing Linus or Python losing Guido.
anyone have information on this? i hadn't heard and google doesn't appear to know either.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4818727
and on Reddit, where Bryan O'Sullivan mentions in the comments that Simon will be working on something Haskell-related:
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/13m8eu/haskell_leav...