[Haskell-community] haskell.org download page

[Michael Snoyman]

This sounds awesome, I'm totally behind it. Thank you Gershom!

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 10:09 AM Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a very good point being made. We should disengangle
> the installer question from the “getting started” question.  Someone
> on reddit even proposed having two seperate pages entirely.
>
> A getting started page that promoted a stack centric workflow for
> beginners as a good “default path” would be reasonable in my eyes, and
> certainly worth discussing. Certainly if it let us lay the downloads
> page to rest with a single option for a minimal installer (with
> perhaps slightly different branding as discussed on a ticket I linked
> earlier — “Haskell Toolchain” or the like) that provided ghc, stack
> and cabal all, then I think that would be a very good way to go.
>
> That way Nicolas and others who wanted to direct people to the
> downloads page, and then wanted to teach them with one sort of
> approach would be able to do so, people who wanted to direct people to
> the downloads page, and teach them with a stack-based approach would
> be able to do so, and people coming to the site directly could
> immediately find a “getting started page” with a single approach that
> got them up and running quickly, and that approach could well be
> stack-oriented if that’s what people think gives the best experience
> for that particular use case.
>
> (Again, I give the caveat I’m speaking just for myself here, and
> thinking this through as an idea I’d like to hear others’ thoughts
> on).
>
> —gershom
>
>
> On August 31, 2016 at 5:48:41 PM, Nicolas Wu (nicolas.wu at gmail.com) wrote:
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:53 PM Paolo Giarrusso
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > The decision about how to manage projects and their dependencies
> should
> > > be
> > > > open and isn't for beginners, whether that be using stack or cabal:
> both
> > > > have their merits, and I don't want to push one over the other.
> > >
> > > I'm honestly confused what you're arguing. You say this decision isn't
> > > for beginners, yet you propose offering the HP. So how should a
> > > beginner install a package without first deciding whether to use
> > > cabal-install or stack? Or can a beginner meaningfully be expected to
> > > learn using both alternatives?
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for not being clear, my bad. Hopefully I can clarify and elaborate
> a
> > bit more.
> >
> > I think a beginner doesn't usually make the choice of how to use
> > GHC/stack/cabal by themselves; they are usually being instructed by
> someone
> > (or a resource) that has decided that for them. On that front I don't
> think
> > there's a singular best way to approach this; there's diversity in the
> way
> > people approach teaching and that's fine and healthy, there's also
> > diversity in the way people learn and the goals they have with the
> language
> > and that's fine and healthy too. We should be supporting people who want
> to
> > learn the language as well as people who want to contribute to teaching.
> We
> > should respect diversity in those roles; if someone wants their students
> to
> > use only stack then by all means they can do so, that shouldn't stop
> others
> > from using ghc or ghci directly.
> >
> > For instance, if a beginner is just trying to run small examples they see
> > on a blog, then maybe all they need is a call to ghci. If they're
> learning
> > about making a simple binary they might want ghc. If they want to have a
> > whole managed project, perhaps they're after either stack or cabal. The
> > point is that they're usually guided by something, and those guides do
> > differ on what they prefer and recommend. The default download should
> > easily support these different modes of learning and teaching.
> >
> >
> > > Also, do both tools have their merits *for beginners*? We're talking
> > > of cabal as-is, not of the ongoing work on new-build.
> > >
> >
> > I'm talking about having a default that bundles tools like ghc, cabal,
> and
> > stack, since these are the main tools our community has for compiling and
> > executing Haskell code. I don't want to force people into one of
> > these--whether that be students or educators. In all cases the default
> > download recommendation should support all of these since they are the
> > mainstream tools we use. To avoid confusion I think there should be only
> > one recommended option on the main download page (and here the HP minimal
> > seems to satisfy this, and stack seems to preclude this). The download
> page
> > should also have a link to other resources (such as the HP Full, stack
> > only, and other distributions like Haskell for Mac) on another page.
> >
> > Since there seems to be confusion about how the committee comes to a
> > consensus I should note that at this point I'm only speaking for myself
> > here. This is just my recommendation, and I'm open and willing to listen
> to
> > other views before considering what I think is best. I am not usually
> > overtly vocal in these discussions, but I do read what is said and form
> my
> > own opinions.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nick
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-community mailing list
> > Haskell-community at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-community mailing list
> Haskell-community at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-community/attachments/20160901/47d9b7e5/attachment.html>