Deprecating Safe Haskell, or heavily investing in it?

[davean]

The only part of Safe Haskell I ever really cared about was type safety.
That's what matters, I think.

I've wanted to use it a number of times and played with it, but it's never
actually managed to become an important part of anything for me.
So take that as you will. I'd love it if it worked well, its issues have
limited what I attempt, but at the end of the day it's never hurt me too
bad to not have it.

-davean

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 7:14 AM Tom Ellis <
tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017 at jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:33:04PM -0700, Chris Smith wrote:
> > This conversation reminds me of a parable I encountered somewhere, in
> which
> > someone declares "I don't understand why this decision was ever made,
> and I
> > we should change it", and someone responds, "No, if you don't understand
> > the decision was made, then you don't know enough to change it.  If you
> > learn why it was decided that way in the first place, then you will have
> > the understanding to decide whether to change it."
>
> That parable is Chesterton's fence:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20221228/8e4348a4/attachment.html>