[Haskell-cafe] Standard package file format

[Mario Blažević]

On 2016-09-16 09:51 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
>> This does not mean that we cannot find a subset of the language that
>> would be a point of balance between the needs of expressivity,
>> learnability and decidability.
>
> Subsettings makes it hard to know what works and what doesn't.
> A Haskell subset would have to be strict - which begs the question
> what's the point in calling this a subset of Haskell (and even if there
> is a point, it will draw ridicule along the lines of "Haskell is
> unsuitable for describing its own configurations").

	Haskell is indeed unsuitable for describing the package configuration, 
IMO, but not because it's lazy. It's because it lacks any syntax for 
long and human-readable string literals (package description, anyone?). 
That also condemns every subset of Haskell.


>> After all JSON was born in roughly this spirit, wasn't it?

	Yes, and JSON (and JavaScript) would suck for the very same reason. 
This deficiency of JSON was a major incentive for creating YAML.

	I'm mildly in favour of supporting another package format in addition 
to .cabal, as long as compatibility is kept, and as long as the new 
format is actually superior. I think any subset of Haskell would be a 
setback from usability perspective.

	One major benefit of YAML that I haven't seen mentioned is that it 
could be used to replace the README.md file at the same time. Right now 
a package description consists of both .cabal and (optionally) Markdown. 
I suspect the latter language is actually harder for complete beginners.