3 ms·

What does your post have to do with anything I said?

mej10 10y ago
> It is FP Complete, a corporation attempting to subvert the haskell community for their financial benefit. There are much, _much_ better and easier ways to make money than what you are suggesting. The idea that they would produce and give away these tools that fix real problems (whether you want to believe it or not) just to somehow down the line subvert the Haskell community to financially benefit is just _absurd_. If this were a larger programming community I could possibly believe it, but Haskell? Which is mostly used by hobbyist? Come on. Have they ever refused to merge a PR because they want you to pay for it? What evidence do you have for this _at all_?
- HaskellMuppet 10y ago
  It's more subtle than that. Sure, Stack is OSS and all that. But Stack's developers have a vision of their own how Stack and Stackage (and by extension the Haskell ecosystem) are supposed to work. They may even make Stack rely on services controlled/hosted exclusively by FPC rather than a neutral entity. And they will reject feature-requests or PRs which don't fit their agenda rather than because you didn't pay them enough. As long as Stack doesn't add any essential functionality over Cabal which would make a package unbuildable with plain Cabal we're good.
  - lallysingh 10y ago
    > And they will reject feature-requests or PRs which don't fit their agenda rather than because you didn't pay them enough. Attribution? And frankly, couldn't you fork stack?
    - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
      Sure, I could fork Stack and implement features I consider important. But how do I get my Stack fork advertized on haskell-lang.org to reach as many people as possible?
      - tome 10y ago
        You can freely write your own website, just like the creators of haskell-lang.org did.
        HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        and how do I get people to notice my haskell-lang.org fork?
        tome 10y ago
        Same way the haskell-lang.org team got people to notice it.
        HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        You're implying everyone's equal. But the fact is that the haskell-lang.org team is made up almost exclusively high-profile Haskell developers who everybody knows already, including backing from a commercial entity which can promote it via their company site, as well as a book author who can promote haskell-lang.org via his new book. So while anybody could just do what the haskell-lang.org team did, it wouldn't have the same impact/effectiveness without a comparable endorsement.
        tome 10y ago
        So, some of the most high-profile Haskellers who have created vast amounts of Haskell software and documentation have started a new initiative and you, you're ... complaining?
        HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        Can you restate your argument more clearly please? I'd like to respond, but you're not making it easy.
        10y ago
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >There are much, _much_ better and easier ways to make money than what you are suggesting. So? By that logic FP complete would not exist. Yet they clearly do. Try emailing them, they are in fact real. Whether you think haskell is too small or not, the fact is they exist to make money on haskell. >The idea that they would produce and give away these tools that fix real problems The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds. They refuse to, and then release a tool to move people to a curated subset of packages and versions instead, bypassing the problem they've imposed on everyone in the first place. >just to somehow down the line subvert the Haskell community to financially benefit is just _absurd_ It is not down the line, or somehow. It is right now, exactly as described. >If this were a larger programming community I could possibly believe it, but Haskell? Again, that logic makes no sense. >Have they ever refused to merge a PR because they want you to pay for it? What does that have to do with anything? How is taking control of haskell related to refusing to merge PRs without payment? >What evidence do you have for this _at all_? I explained it quite clearly. Your response is to say nothing that has happened counts because "it is haskell".
  - michaelt_ 10y ago
    You keep repeating the claim that `stack` exists in order to solve a problem deliberately created by the FPComplete crowd. This is frankly a really disturbing lie that has nothing to do with reality or the actual order of events. The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. The theory of extreme restriction of bounds, the theory of eliminating upper bounds, and the existence of stack, stackage and so on are founded on real and genuine problems that arose with the appearance of immense builds like pandoc and especially yesod. I didn't particularly care for the stack business when it came along, but this is because I understood `cabal-install` pretty well, and still prefer it, but more importantly because I wasn't engaged in professional development that involved the co-operation of e.g. 100 Haskell packages - though I did spend countless hours helping new users get around the build problems with yesod and the like. It just is a fact that `cabal-install` was not ready for the existence of the phenomenon of the immense industrial Haskell build.

mej10 10y ago

> It is FP Complete, a corporation attempting to subvert the haskell community for their financial benefit. There are much, _much_ better and easier ways to make money than what you are suggesting. The idea that they would produce and give away these tools that fix real problems (whether you want to believe it or not) just to somehow down the line subvert the Haskell community to financially benefit is just _absurd_. If this were a larger programming community I could possibly believe it, but Haskell? Which is mostly used by hobbyist? Come on. Have they ever refused to merge a PR because they want you to pay for it? What evidence do you have for this _at all_?

HaskellMuppet 10y ago
It's more subtle than that. Sure, Stack is OSS and all that. But Stack's developers have a vision of their own how Stack and Stackage (and by extension the Haskell ecosystem) are supposed to work. They may even make Stack rely on services controlled/hosted exclusively by FPC rather than a neutral entity. And they will reject feature-requests or PRs which don't fit their agenda rather than because you didn't pay them enough. As long as Stack doesn't add any essential functionality over Cabal which would make a package unbuildable with plain Cabal we're good.
- lallysingh 10y ago
  > And they will reject feature-requests or PRs which don't fit their agenda rather than because you didn't pay them enough. Attribution? And frankly, couldn't you fork stack?
  - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
    Sure, I could fork Stack and implement features I consider important. But how do I get my Stack fork advertized on haskell-lang.org to reach as many people as possible?
    - tome 10y ago
      You can freely write your own website, just like the creators of haskell-lang.org did.
      - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        and how do I get people to notice my haskell-lang.org fork?
        tome 10y ago
        Same way the haskell-lang.org team got people to notice it.
        HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        You're implying everyone's equal. But the fact is that the haskell-lang.org team is made up almost exclusively high-profile Haskell developers who everybody knows already, including backing from a commercial entity which can promote it via their company site, as well as a book author who can promote haskell-lang.org via his new book. So while anybody could just do what the haskell-lang.org team did, it wouldn't have the same impact/effectiveness without a comparable endorsement.
        tome 10y ago
        So, some of the most high-profile Haskellers who have created vast amounts of Haskell software and documentation have started a new initiative and you, you're ... complaining?
        HaskellMuppet 10y ago
        Can you restate your argument more clearly please? I'd like to respond, but you're not making it easy.
        10y ago
MustardTiger 10y ago
>There are much, _much_ better and easier ways to make money than what you are suggesting. So? By that logic FP complete would not exist. Yet they clearly do. Try emailing them, they are in fact real. Whether you think haskell is too small or not, the fact is they exist to make money on haskell. >The idea that they would produce and give away these tools that fix real problems The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds. They refuse to, and then release a tool to move people to a curated subset of packages and versions instead, bypassing the problem they've imposed on everyone in the first place. >just to somehow down the line subvert the Haskell community to financially benefit is just _absurd_ It is not down the line, or somehow. It is right now, exactly as described. >If this were a larger programming community I could possibly believe it, but Haskell? Again, that logic makes no sense. >Have they ever refused to merge a PR because they want you to pay for it? What does that have to do with anything? How is taking control of haskell related to refusing to merge PRs without payment? >What evidence do you have for this _at all_? I explained it quite clearly. Your response is to say nothing that has happened counts because "it is haskell".
- michaelt_ 10y ago
  You keep repeating the claim that `stack` exists in order to solve a problem deliberately created by the FPComplete crowd. This is frankly a really disturbing lie that has nothing to do with reality or the actual order of events. The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. The theory of extreme restriction of bounds, the theory of eliminating upper bounds, and the existence of stack, stackage and so on are founded on real and genuine problems that arose with the appearance of immense builds like pandoc and especially yesod. I didn't particularly care for the stack business when it came along, but this is because I understood `cabal-install` pretty well, and still prefer it, but more importantly because I wasn't engaged in professional development that involved the co-operation of e.g. 100 Haskell packages - though I did spend countless hours helping new users get around the build problems with yesod and the like. It just is a fact that `cabal-install` was not ready for the existence of the phenomenon of the immense industrial Haskell build.