3 ms·
Isn't "hackage" the not-fully-vetted / unstable namespace of packages? Is it recommended to use hackage packages in production systems?
by StefanKarpinski 10y ago
Isn't "hackage" the not-fully-vetted / unstable namespace of packages? Is it recommended to use hackage packages in production systems?
- dack 10y agoHackage is like npm. Anyone can put something up there, but people expect them to be depended on for production stuff. There is another thing called "stackage" - it's a curated set of packages from hackage that are known to work together (due to being run in a continuous build environment), but not all packages are on there.
- hyperpape 10y agoNo, hackage is just one place where documentation lives, for both base and non-base things. For instance, very much base things have docs there. https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.0.0/docs/Data-List.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.0.0/docs/Data-L.... Clarity about what lives where is one area where the Haskell ecosystem is a bit deficient, in my opinion. Documentation in general doesn't seem to be great.
- Chris_Newton 10y agoIn the case of the text package, it’s a well-respected de facto standard regardless of its official status, and probably as safe a dependency as you’re ever going to get in practice. Anecdotally, everything serious I write in Haskell uses Data.Text by default these days, and just converts to and from other representations like String as necessary. It’s mildly inconvenient for things like writing Show instances or integrating with a library that uses a different convention, but still better in almost any context than using String by default IME.