3 ms·

>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

>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.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. No, it is not. Every FP complete employee does this. All of their packages are missing upper bounds. They actively promote not using upper bounds, writing blog posts and reddit comments telling people to violate the PVP. Just because they are not the only ones who do it, does not mean it is "independent" of them. They do it without fail, and they promote doing it to others. >It just is a fact that `cabal-install` was not ready for the existence of the phenomenon of the immense industrial Haskell build. That is not a fact, it is a fiction. Cabal-install did and still does work fantastically for our immense industrial haskell builds. Just broken packages like yesod were problems. And they were not problems with cabal-install, they were problems with people not understanding the consequences of no upper bounds, and expecting things that can not be possible to "just work". Stack did not solve this problem in any way, it simply bypassed it by restricting the set of packages to one curated set of versions.
  - massysett 10y ago
    So you maintain immense industrial Haskell builds, presumably for pay. Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      >Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. >Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans. Nothing in that is accurate at all. There is nothing arbitrary about a cabal build plan.

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.

MustardTiger 10y ago
>The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. No, it is not. Every FP complete employee does this. All of their packages are missing upper bounds. They actively promote not using upper bounds, writing blog posts and reddit comments telling people to violate the PVP. Just because they are not the only ones who do it, does not mean it is "independent" of them. They do it without fail, and they promote doing it to others. >It just is a fact that `cabal-install` was not ready for the existence of the phenomenon of the immense industrial Haskell build. That is not a fact, it is a fiction. Cabal-install did and still does work fantastically for our immense industrial haskell builds. Just broken packages like yesod were problems. And they were not problems with cabal-install, they were problems with people not understanding the consequences of no upper bounds, and expecting things that can not be possible to "just work". Stack did not solve this problem in any way, it simply bypassed it by restricting the set of packages to one curated set of versions.
- massysett 10y ago
  So you maintain immense industrial Haskell builds, presumably for pay. Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    >Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. >Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans. Nothing in that is accurate at all. There is nothing arbitrary about a cabal build plan.