[ghc-steering-committee] Why not?, rather than, why?

[Simon Marlow]

Apologies, I didn't mean to sound like I wanted us to be "authoritarian",
perhaps more along the lines of "opinionated". By analogy with the CLC:
they are forced to make decisions, because there is only one set of core
libraries. I don't necessarily agree with all the decisions that the CLC
makes, but I'm very glad we only have one set of core libraries.

In GHC we have the dubious luxury of being able to give people optional
language features, I'm suggesting we should use this very carefully and
avoid forks - which is our current policy anyway - but to be more
intentional about it in the way that Joachim suggested. I'm also a fan of
an open platform that encourages experimentation, but at some point we have
to accept (I believe) that too much of this leads to a poor experience for
new users. (that's putting it gently! I'm itching to rant about this some
more, but I fear it may come across poorly. One for the pub.)

Cheers
Simon

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 at 19:04, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:

> I think we are on the same page, but the thread seemed to be taking an
> authoritarian turn so I thought it best to ensure the voices of caution
> were represented!
>
> Chris
>
> > On 2 Dec 2022, at 17:39, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Freitag, dem 02.12.2022 um 17:27 +0000 schrieb Chris Dornan:
> >> I am sympathetic to the idea of a new language standard that we
> >> promote heavily and encourage developers, tools, tutorials and
> >> courseware to favour —if we get this right then we will reap the
> >> benefits of a strong standard. But if we take it upon ourselves to
> >> try and force an extension combination of our choosing on the
> >> community because we believe the community will benefit from a big
> >> reset then I think it could blow up on us really badly, with forks
> >> and factions which could be truly difficult to manage — and fatally
> >> discourage adoption.
> >
> > ah, sorry if I was unclear. I am certainly not proposing a form of “big
> > reset”!  It’s more about “should every language extension be in
> > principle on track towards in inclusion to a future GHC20xx” – still
> > all incremental and cautious.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joachim
> >
> > --
> > Joachim Breitner
> >  mail at joachim-breitner.de
> >  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20221205/7262b7a6/attachment.html>