[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell web development entries on the Wiki

Michael Snoyman michael at snoyman.com
Sun Oct 3 00:51:56 EDT 2010

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Christopher Done
<chrisdone at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2 October 2010 22:13, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
>> I understand the advantages to splitting into multiple pages, but on
>> the other hand it *does* make it more difficult to locate information.
> It does? What's an example? I'll fix it.

It was more of a general comment. When everything's on the same page,
I can do ctrl-f "happ" and find information about all the pieces of
happstack. As I said, I think a search function is a good replacement.

>> My guess is a good search function on the wiki will make that point
>> moot.
> Probably!
>> * Does pass.net still exist anywhere? Same for parallel web.
> I couldn't find any references to pass.net.


>> * Should older, unmaintained stuff (Wash, for example) be removed
>> entirely, placed on its own page or be obviously marked as
>> unmaintained?
> Yes, I think so. There are a lot of frameworks on that page that are
> just cluttering it up, most of them are unmaintained or don't really
> have a big user-base. Perhaps we should split it to Active /
> Recommended  and  Inactive / Unevaluated or something like that. If I
> was looking for web frameworks I'd want to know which ones were
> actively maintained and then *maybe* what other ones there are. It
> could well be two pages. Frameworks/Active or Recommended_Frameworks
> and then the other. I'm not sure. Thoughts, chaps?

I would recommend *not* qualifying the active/recommended stuff. Maybe
"Frameworks" and "Frameworks/Inactive". I personally wouldn't want to
group new, unevaluated code with inactive: I think we should give the
new players the same publicity as the established products on the main
page, but perhaps with a little label explaining how new/untested it


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list