<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:47 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <<a href="mailto:trupill@gmail.com" class="">trupill@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">I have the feeling that people think that GHC is less rounded that it is due to the myriad of extensions one needs to enable to bring some functionality in (MultiParamTypeClasses + FlexibleInstances + FlexibleContexts come to mind for any class-based programming). This is one of the reasons I wanted to push the new GHC2020 "standard".</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">I agree. A frequent comment at events is that Haskell is just too complicated. But I think what the speakers often mean is that there are too many extensions. I've asked what people mean, and I never have felt I've gotten a more satisfactory answre than that. Happily, it's a relatively easy problem to fix!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That said, I do think writing out some goals would be a useful exercise.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard</div></body></html>