6 ms·

For starters just recently FP Complete open-sourced a new cool high-performance serialization library. Then a few people started giving Michael shit for no reas

For starters just recently FP Complete open-sourced a new cool high-performance serialization library. Then a few people started giving Michael shit for no reason. See https://www.reddit.com/user/snoyberg?after=t1_d3ncybv https://www.reddit.com/user/snoyberg?after=t1_d3ncybv

gmfawcett 10y ago
Are you talking about the "store" discussion? Michael seems to have brought some of that upon himself. He entered that discussion in a fairly abrasive way [1], and based on his replies, he didn't seem very motivated to foster a more positive discussion (or to just walk away from the trolls). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4l3y9f/store_a_new_and_efficient_binary_serialization/d3kb0ig https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4l3y9f/store_a_new...
MustardTiger 10y ago
Are you mgsloan on reddit? Nobody said anything about snoyberg at all until he showed up and started shitting on everyone like usual. All I said was that FP complete is setting a bad example by actively refusing to follow established community guidelines (PvP).
- realmgsloan 10y ago
  No, it isn't. I don't use HN much, just taking a look at this conversation. I shouldn't even respond to this comment considering its tone. You should keep in mind that this was in discussion of a new serialization library, not the PVP. I actually had to create this new account because I forgot my password and my old account (probably mgsloan) doesn't have an email address associated. > All I said was that FP complete is setting a bad example by actively refusing to follow established community guidelines (PvP). We do follow the important parts of the PvP. Personally, I consider the 3rd section of the PvP a failed experiment. It just doesn't work well, and the maintainer / hackage trustee overhead is too damn high. My theory is that the folks who are adamant about the PvP are either damn tenacious and dedicated (hvr, dcoutts, etc), or people who don't deal with projects with many dependencies and custom packages. So, yes, we are willing to dump tradition when the tradition is nonsense. I think that Haskellers ought to understand this very well - tradition should be questioned - particularly when it is a major pain point. When there is great value in doing so, we are questioning some traditions and doing our own thing. This attitude appears to be ruffling the feathers of the vocal minority.
  - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
    What are the important parts of the PvP and why are they important?
  - mightybyte 10y ago
    The whole PVP debate really boils down to one simple question. Do you believe that a properly functioning dependency solver is important for the community? If you answer yes, then I think it's pretty straightforward to get from there to the conclusion that version bounds are necessary. And by the contrapositive, if you are arguing against upper bounds, then you are actually arguing against the usefulness of a solver. If you answer no, then we should debate the merits of having a solver.
    - massysett 10y ago
      Would it be possible to do this more like GNU configure does? The software specifies what it needs, and the system looks for a version that works. How about check the Haskell code automatically to see what functions it uses? If I'm using `text`, and all I use from that package is `pack`, `unpack`, and `cons`, I shouldn't have to specify bounds. The Cabal way of doing this--specifying version bounds--creates a big maintenance burden. And even then, it does not always work. So yes, I would question the merits of having a solver that checks some version numbers that developers manually put in. That said, I lack the know-how or resources to come up with anything new, so I'm stuck using curation or a solver. Using someone else's curation winds up being much less work for me than using a solver, so that's what I do.
      - hvr_ 10y ago
        > Using someone else's curation winds up being much less work for me than using a solver, so that's what I do. :-( So basically, you value your time more than the time of us Hackage Trustees, who now have to fix the mess you're leaving behind on Hackage. That's like justifying littering because that's less work, since there's public services anyway which pick up the garbage you leave behind. If you have the time to write software, package it up, write tests, package it up, and upload to Hackage, then is it really asked too much to go that extra mile and follow the PVP to not waste our time?

gmfawcett 10y ago

Are you talking about the "store" discussion? Michael seems to have brought some of that upon himself. He entered that discussion in a fairly abrasive way [1], and based on his replies, he didn't seem very motivated to foster a more positive discussion (or to just walk away from the trolls). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4l3y9f/store_a_new_and_efficient_binary_serialization/d3kb0ig https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4l3y9f/store_a_new...

MustardTiger 10y ago

Are you mgsloan on reddit? Nobody said anything about snoyberg at all until he showed up and started shitting on everyone like usual. All I said was that FP complete is setting a bad example by actively refusing to follow established community guidelines (PvP).

realmgsloan 10y ago
No, it isn't. I don't use HN much, just taking a look at this conversation. I shouldn't even respond to this comment considering its tone. You should keep in mind that this was in discussion of a new serialization library, not the PVP. I actually had to create this new account because I forgot my password and my old account (probably mgsloan) doesn't have an email address associated. > All I said was that FP complete is setting a bad example by actively refusing to follow established community guidelines (PvP). We do follow the important parts of the PvP. Personally, I consider the 3rd section of the PvP a failed experiment. It just doesn't work well, and the maintainer / hackage trustee overhead is too damn high. My theory is that the folks who are adamant about the PvP are either damn tenacious and dedicated (hvr, dcoutts, etc), or people who don't deal with projects with many dependencies and custom packages. So, yes, we are willing to dump tradition when the tradition is nonsense. I think that Haskellers ought to understand this very well - tradition should be questioned - particularly when it is a major pain point. When there is great value in doing so, we are questioning some traditions and doing our own thing. This attitude appears to be ruffling the feathers of the vocal minority.
- HaskellMuppet 10y ago
  What are the important parts of the PvP and why are they important?
- mightybyte 10y ago
  The whole PVP debate really boils down to one simple question. Do you believe that a properly functioning dependency solver is important for the community? If you answer yes, then I think it's pretty straightforward to get from there to the conclusion that version bounds are necessary. And by the contrapositive, if you are arguing against upper bounds, then you are actually arguing against the usefulness of a solver. If you answer no, then we should debate the merits of having a solver.
  - massysett 10y ago
    Would it be possible to do this more like GNU configure does? The software specifies what it needs, and the system looks for a version that works. How about check the Haskell code automatically to see what functions it uses? If I'm using `text`, and all I use from that package is `pack`, `unpack`, and `cons`, I shouldn't have to specify bounds. The Cabal way of doing this--specifying version bounds--creates a big maintenance burden. And even then, it does not always work. So yes, I would question the merits of having a solver that checks some version numbers that developers manually put in. That said, I lack the know-how or resources to come up with anything new, so I'm stuck using curation or a solver. Using someone else's curation winds up being much less work for me than using a solver, so that's what I do.
    - hvr_ 10y ago
      > Using someone else's curation winds up being much less work for me than using a solver, so that's what I do. :-( So basically, you value your time more than the time of us Hackage Trustees, who now have to fix the mess you're leaving behind on Hackage. That's like justifying littering because that's less work, since there's public services anyway which pick up the garbage you leave behind. If you have the time to write software, package it up, write tests, package it up, and upload to Hackage, then is it really asked too much to go that extra mile and follow the PVP to not waste our time?