Survival of generic-classes in ghc

Simon Peyton-Jones
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:27:07 -0800

| I'm disturbed by the idea of adding explicit type application=20
| and the like to Haskell.  Haskell language extensions are=20
| rapidly becoming a riotous array of confusing syntax and=20
| twisty semantic corners.  From an experimenter's standpoint,=20
| this isn't so bad.  However, many of these extensions are=20
| incredibly useful, and there's a lot of code relying upon=20
| them.  This creates pressure (from both users and
| implementors) to immortalize the existing, grubby=20
| implementations. The result?  An incomprehensible, byzantine language.

Yes, that's a danger.  My own hope is that the practial experience of
using and programming with these various features will lead us slowly
to a realisation of some underlying unifying approaches or principles.
That is what the rest of you message is reaching for -- which is great.
But it easier to identify the problem than to come up with a
solution, and I for one do not have one.  But I think it would be great
to find one.