Improving the "Get Haskell Experience"

[amindfv at gmail.com]

The HP is a place for tools which have stabilized. A few reasons why I don't think stack is ready:

- stack has initial interest from the community, but so did ghc-dev and hsenv. It's still (imo) in proof of concept stage, and we don't know where its lessons will ultimately end up. In those other two cases, they ended up being folded into cabal, which is one likely scenario with stack.

- There are other solutions on the horizon! There's a GSOC project that will add nix-style package management to cabal. This should eliminate most (all?) the cabal hell we know and love, and that's why most stack users are trying it, no?

- The HP is for stable apis for users, too -- we provide tools that users won't have to unlearn or re-learn. Most languages don't have two package managers! We're clearly in an unstable state, which isn't when we should add to the HP.

If 9 months from now stack is clearly the right tool for the job (i.e. we're considering deprecating cabal), then I'd definitely consider supporting adding it to the HP but otherwise i'm strongly -1. (If it needs saying, I don't think stack is a bad tool).

tl;dr: The dust hasn't settled. Please don't add tools to the HP which we don't know will be in common use (in their current form) a year from now.

Tom


El Jul 12, 2015, a las 12:25, Mark Lentczner <mark.lentczner at gmail.com> escribió:

> No - we are not talking about the upcoming, 7.10.2 HP release. It would for the next major release after that.
> 
> Yes, stack has only been out ~1 month, but it has already shown traction in the community, and it has a clear working solution for managing "curated" pacakge sets, like Haskell Platform.
> ​