[Haskell-cafe] idea: ratings (or maybe comments) for packages in hackage

[Carter Schonwald]

indeed! Now having those latter tabulations on hackage-server  (or a hint
for new haskellers about where to look) would be dandy

i'm happilly over the "who does/likes what" hump myself, but it is valuable
breadcrumbs for folks getting started. That said, asking via cafe  / reddit
/ irc is also valuable because you can get peoples *opinions* about when
two libraries are better in what use case. Not all problems can have a
"canonically best tool" (as much as we'd like to strive for such tools)


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dan Burton <danburton.email at gmail.com>wrote:

> And these steps are done!
>
> * Download count is already there on Hackage, though it's relatively new
> so it may take some more time for these numbers to have real weight.
> * Revdeps are calculated and provided here:
> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse
>
> -- Dan Burton
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Honestly the first step is making it easier (and efficient) to look at
>> reverse dependency information plus download count.  Those numbers are both
>> manipulable,  but can still yield some informative basic info.
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 4, 2013, Ben Gamari wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Paul <charlieap at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > This has been proposed many times before, and each time everyone agrees
>>> > that something like this is a good idea. However, like many good
>>> proposals,
>>> > no one has put up code.
>>> >
>>> I also think that many Hackage improvements like this one were blocked on
>>> Hackage 2. Now since this is finally in the wild it should be a bit
>>> easier for people to pick up this sort of project.
>>>
>>> > Also in this particular case, the devil is in the details. How do
>>> ratings
>>> > transfer between versions? How do you account for the effects of
>>> bitrot?
>>> >
>>> Certainly there are tricky details to work out but I think a lot of the
>>> work will be simply getting to the point where we can collect ratings
>>> and stuff them into a database. After this there would need to be some
>>> experimentation to work out the finer points you mention.
>>>
>>> In my mind a rating would consist of some numeric rating (1-5, for
>>> instance,
>>> perhaps along multiple dimensions, e.g.: quality of documentation,
>>> type-safety
>>> of interface, performance) for a particular package. The user, date, and
>>> current version number should also be recorded.
>>>
>>> A zeroth-order approach for accounting for bit-rot might be to use a
>>> simple temporally-weighted average. This would be simple to implement
>>> and might even produce marginally useful results. Even if not, it's a
>>> place to start.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> - Ben
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20131104/a3c12b2c/attachment.html>