Re: Proposal: Expanding the CLC

Tony Morris <[email protected]> Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:24:35 +1000
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lang.haskell.libraries
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
I second Simon's words. I didn't read the previous thread, nor will I, 
so I have no idea what happened with your suggestion.

The Haskell Foundation is primed to work toward solving some of the 
problems with the standard library.

FWIW, your suggested operation is a primitive operation of the 
Extend/Comonad type-class called duplicate, though this is not in the 
standard libraries.

On 2/17/21 8:54 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:
> Ignat
>
> Thanks for writing.  You are just the sort of person that ought to feel welcome, and able to contribute. That you have not felt that way is a failure.
>
> I'd like to suggest another explanation to the three you offer (none of which I subscribe to).
>
> 4.  The now-very-large Haskell ecosystem runs on the efforts of busy volunteers, all of whom have day jobs.  However well-meaning or high-minded we are, things will be left undone, or done less well than we aspire to.
>
> I hope and believe that the Haskell Foundation will help with this challenge.  I don’t think it'll be a silver bullet.  But it should help; and making volunteers such as you feel both welcome and able to contribute meaningfully is certainly a major goal.
>
> | Haskell has not only made me a programmer — it defined me as a person. 
> | There is no other language and no other community like this one. I have
> | reverence. Is it the same for anyone else here? Or should I, rather, grow
> | up and move on?
>
> Please don't grow up and move on!  We are working together to build not just a language to be proud of, but a community we can flourish in.  We will stumble for sure, but if we are humble, respectful of each other, and willing to keep trying, I think we can succeed.
>
> Simon
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Libraries <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ignat
> | Insarov
> | Sent: 16 February 2021 21:57
> | To: Carter Schonwald <[email protected]>
> | Cc: Haskell Libraries <[email protected]>
> | Subject: Re: Proposal: Expanding the CLC
> |
> | Carter's words touched me. Ever neither smart nor silent, I am going to
> | be a little loud once more.
> |
> | Being an outside spectator of this venue, a beneficiary _(one of
> | innumerably many)_ of the work being inconspicuously done by the persons
> | present, and a skilled developer that potentially may shoulder some of
> | the burden, I would really like to understand better the structure of
> | power and the philosophy behind the CLC enterprise — it is not
> | observable, therefore I cannot decide who to be thankful to and whether
> | my participation is reasonably warranted. I know there are people that do
> | a huge amount of work continuously fixing a vaguely defined cloud of
> | _«core»_ packages — but I also know these people have no idea that I
> | exist, from which it follows that my needs and wishes are respected only
> | accidentally.
> |
> | I am voicing this thought for these reasons:
> |
> | * I am a small scale commercial Haskell user — on its face it classifies
> | me as
> |   the target audience. I am invested into Haskell but not a luminary like
> | those
> |   others present here — rather an ordinary person, an average. In some
> | way this
> |   makes me a representative example.
> |
> | * I am somewhat altruistic. I contribute open source code, answer
> | questions
> |   about Haskell and even help people privately without mercantile aims. 
> | This
> |   suggests that I should want to participate in an effort that is
> | beneficial to
> |   many — being an altruist, I may as well be an effective one.
> |
> | If there is a person that should be caught in the wave, that is me here. 
> | But it is very evident that I am not. The story is that I asked `\x → (x,
> | x)` to be given a place in standard libraries — hard to find a more
> | innocent proposition. As some know, it did not go well. _(This is not an
> | only example but the most striking.)_ There are several possible
> | explanations.
> |
> | 1. This is meritocracy at work. Haskell collects some of the most gifted
> |    programmers of the world. A mere mortal cannot possibly suggest any
> |    beneficial change to `base` or `containers` or `vector` or `cabal-
> | install` —
> |    in all likelihood it was already considered by the wise council.
> |
> | 2. The philosophy is unclear and undisputed. For example, it was
> | suggested to me
> |    in private correspondence that the reason the standard libraries are
> | not
> |    being extended more often is because exporting more names is wrong. 
> | This is
> |    of course as valid a principle as any — but I do not see it being
> | spelled out
> |    and considered on the basis of evidence. Perhaps the wizards of code
> | are not
> |    that good at other things, like being clear about their design goals.
> |
> | 3. The power structure is set up in favour of a specific invisible group
> | that
> |    sets the tune. Recall the story about Stack and Cabal. It had been
> | shown
> |    clearly that the interests of the community at large are not
> | represented in
> |    the group of maintainers of Cabal. It is hard to triangulate from the
> |    distance what exactly went wrong, but on the basis of the meager
> | evidence
> |    that I can have, the theory is plausible, and evidence keeps adding
> | up.
> |
> | There is also a question of who selects the libraries to be called
> | _«core»_. For example, Stack _(and, consequently, half the user base of
> | Haskell)_ depends on `rio`, and `typed-process` is a superiour
> | replacement for `process`. Should the _«core»_ include packages vital to
> | half the user base? Should it include a superiour replacement of a
> | morally obsolete package? Or is it a place where leviathans of the past
> | come to die? What does it entail for a package to be considered _«core»_? 
> | Does it get included in the standard distribution? What sort of packages
> | should we like to distribute?
> |
> | Finally, there is a question of high principles. Haskell can be a
> | pragmatic tool of the trade or a paragon of elegance, rock-solid or
> | bleeding edge… maybe even all of it at once, but what does the
> | _management_ want it to be? What do you folks dream of? What is your
> | ideal? I cannot see any — I only see reactive efforts to fend off the
> | inevitably approaching future. No one would be inspired by that. I
> | suspect there are a few people that get paid to contribute to Haskell. 
> | Maybe that should be the main motive instead? Maybe it is time to say
> | that Haskell is a commercial language maintained by corporate employees? 
> | I would not like to be one but at least expectations would be aligned.
> |
> | Haskell has not only made me a programmer — it defined me as a person. 
> | There is no other language and no other community like this one. I have
> | reverence. Is it the same for anyone else here? Or should I, rather, grow
> | up and move on?
> | _______________________________________________
> | Libraries mailing list
> | [email protected]
> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.has
> | kell.org%2Fcgi-
> | bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microso
> | ft.com%7C7f7bb62c42ac43639d6a08d8d2c5c706%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> | b47%7C1%7C0%7C637491094192227676%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> | MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=VxR73
> | 6V5TUUf%2B0OfzlBAQK9GG1CpaiBZahvqtiE7obM%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
OpenPGP_0xFC47318DEB073D0F.asc (application/pgp-keys, 1.7 KB)
OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, 495 B) - not displayed