Deprecating Safe Haskell, or heavily investing in it?

[Carter Schonwald]

I think some flavor / iterations of lambda bot has used it for example.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:44 PM Jaro Reinders <jaro.reinders at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I do agree that Safe Haskell would be useful even if it was only used for
> enforcing type safety and avoiding accidental use of unsafe features, but
> the
> paper [1] makes it quite clear that one of the main goals is to safely
> execute
> untrusted code:
>
> "Safe Haskell makes it possible to confine and safely execute untrusted,
> possibly malicious code. By strictly enforcing types, Safe Haskell allows
> a
> variety of different policies from API sandboxing to information-flow
> control
> to be implemented easily as monads.
> [..]
> We use Safe Haskell to implement an online Haskell interpreter that can
> securely execute arbitrary untrusted code with no overhead."
>
> Cheers, Jaro
>
> [1] https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/terei:safe-haskell.pdf
>
> On 13-01-2023 18:06, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> > Indeed type safety is exactly what it’s for! The other notions of safety
> were
> > never part of the goals. And it was designed so that the end user could
> decide
> > which codes they deem trustworthy.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM davean <davean at xkcd.com
> > <mailto:davean at xkcd.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     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
> >     <mailto: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
> >         <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence>
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         ghc-devs mailing list
> >         ghc-devs at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>
> >         http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> >         <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     ghc-devs mailing list
> >     ghc-devs at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>
> >     http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> >     <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-devs mailing list
> > ghc-devs at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230113/d7fe422b/attachment.html>