11 ms·

The Haskell Platform 2011.2 is out: GHC 7 for all

97 points by dons 16y ago

zmanian 16y ago
Question? I'm an ubuntu/xmonad user. I also do some occasional haskell coding. I've been using the packaged versions of xmonad and the haskell platform thus far. Are people building from source? Waiting for Natty? Using a ppa?
- jmillikin 16y ago
  For most of my Haskell work, I just use the standard GHC package, with libraries installed in clean environments using ``cabal-dev``. Compatibility with Ubuntu-packaged libraries, such as xmonad or mtl, is too important to trade away for a new GHC. For testing against GHC 7, I built from source and installed to ~/.opt/ghc_7.0.1 -- over the next few days I'll probably grab 7.0.2 and install in the same way. This is only for testing -- I don't built software against it, generally. Building GHC from source is actually very easy -- just install the development packages, then ./configure && make . There's instructions in the GHC tarball.
  - zmanian 16y ago
    I'll probably follow this strategy. I'll wait for the entire package structure to be revved in the next ubuntu release hopefully. I'll run ghc7/cabal-dev from a portion of the home directory not in my path
droz 16y ago
Would be nice for the Haskell Platform to adopt a de facto IDE (e.g., Leksah) that was compatible across the major OS platforms and distribute it along with the other developer tools.
- ionfish 16y ago
  When I download a compiler and the core libraries for a language, I don't want to have to download an IDE with it—Haskell Platform downloads are generally slow enough already, without adding something that really shouldn't be considered part of the core functionality of a language.
gurraman 16y ago
Very nice! I've never written anything in Haskell beyond configuring Xmonad, so I don't know if this is how it works in the Haskell-world, but presenting it this way (the "Robust"-section in particular) really gives me the feeling that this is a great platform to explore. Libraries are extremely important, and choosing between similar ones leads to anxiety. I think many languages should take after this. If not distribute libraries with the platform (batteries included), at-least bless some libraries. It'd be so much easier to get started with some languages (cough, Erlang) if authoritative characters in the loop would share their opinions.
thisrod 16y ago
It would be nice for this site to give more detailed advice on studying Haskell. Learning a language should be a side effect of studying its canon of programs. Is there a book that relates to Haskell as TAoCP does to machine code, SICP to Scheme, K&R to C, and the dragon book to Lex and Yacc?
- scott_s 16y ago
  I've been working my way through Yet Another Haskell Tutorial: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hal/docs/daume02yaht.pdf http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hal/docs/daume02yaht.pdf
- dons 16y ago
  Some advice is given in the "read more" link: http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/contents.html http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/contents.html
- kanak 16y ago
  > Is there a book that relates to Haskell as TAoCP does to machine code, SICP to Scheme, K&R to C, and the dragon book to Lex and Yacc? My vote would be for Richard Bird and Phil Wadler's Intro to functional programming using Haskell.
  - thisrod 16y ago
    Thanks. That sounds good.
  - batterseapower 16y ago
    Possibly more up to date in Hutton's Programming in Haskell. I've heard very good things about it: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/book.html http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/book.html
    - kanak 16y ago
      I've read both books and like them both. However, I prefer Bird/Wadler better because there's a pervasive "let's derive this"/"let's prove this" approach to the topics. By which I mean, given a spec, let's derive a program that does the task (and later, let's optimize this function using laws we know such as relations between map and filter, the laws of fold). Hutton takes this type of approach only in his final chapter. Hutton is definitely easier, and does a better job of teaching you the core of Haskell, however Bird/Wadler teaches you how to derive programs from spec (further covered in Bird's Pearls of Functional Programming book). I think the difference is like the one between How to Design Programs and Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.
jamesbritt 16y ago
I'm using Ubuntu Maverick. The debs page (http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=haskell-platform http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=haskell-platform) has 2010.1.0.0.1. How do I get 2011.2 for Maverick?
- dons 16y ago
  You'll need to wait for your distro maintainer to update the package set. Alternatively, you can build from source, using a generic Linux ghc, like so: http://www.vex.net/~trebla/haskell/haskell-platform.xhtml http://www.vex.net/~trebla/haskell/haskell-platform.xhtml
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    Cool, thanks for the link.
johnbender 16y ago
Shameless plug here, but if you're interested in installing the platform but don't want it clogging up your dev environment I've created a snap project skeleton that will do it for you with Vagrant and Chef. http://johnbender.us/2011/03/05/snap-setup-from-scratch-the-vagrant-way/ http://johnbender.us/2011/03/05/snap-setup-from-scratch-the-... Snap is the only extra install and you can quite easily alter the haskell platform version in the Vagrantfile. I'll be updating this tonight when I get home if you don't mind waiting.
itsnotvalid 16y ago
Actually you can install only needed packages from cabal using it as `cabal install`. Since it requires compiling the packages using either methods anyways.
anonymousDan 16y ago
Still no GUI programming support!
sgt 16y ago
I love Haskell, it's incredibly powerful, fast and elegant. However, I switched to Erlang because it's a heck of a lot easier to learn and it's quicker to sit down with it and produce something tangible. While I struggled to learn the concepts of Haskell, I immediately "clicked" with Erlang. I still wish to look up Haskell again though, it's very intriguing.

97 points by dons 16y ago

Question? I'm an ubuntu/xmonad user. I also do some occasional haskell coding. I've been using the packaged versions of xmonad and the haskell platform thus far. Are people building from source? Waiting for Natty? Using a ppa?

jmillikin 16y ago
For most of my Haskell work, I just use the standard GHC package, with libraries installed in clean environments using ``cabal-dev``. Compatibility with Ubuntu-packaged libraries, such as xmonad or mtl, is too important to trade away for a new GHC. For testing against GHC 7, I built from source and installed to ~/.opt/ghc_7.0.1 -- over the next few days I'll probably grab 7.0.2 and install in the same way. This is only for testing -- I don't built software against it, generally. Building GHC from source is actually very easy -- just install the development packages, then ./configure && make . There's instructions in the GHC tarball.
- zmanian 16y ago
  I'll probably follow this strategy. I'll wait for the entire package structure to be revved in the next ubuntu release hopefully. I'll run ghc7/cabal-dev from a portion of the home directory not in my path

droz 16y ago

Would be nice for the Haskell Platform to adopt a de facto IDE (e.g., Leksah) that was compatible across the major OS platforms and distribute it along with the other developer tools.

ionfish 16y ago
When I download a compiler and the core libraries for a language, I don't want to have to download an IDE with it—Haskell Platform downloads are generally slow enough already, without adding something that really shouldn't be considered part of the core functionality of a language.

gurraman 16y ago

Very nice! I've never written anything in Haskell beyond configuring Xmonad, so I don't know if this is how it works in the Haskell-world, but presenting it this way (the "Robust"-section in particular) really gives me the feeling that this is a great platform to explore. Libraries are extremely important, and choosing between similar ones leads to anxiety. I think many languages should take after this. If not distribute libraries with the platform (batteries included), at-least bless some libraries. It'd be so much easier to get started with some languages (cough, Erlang) if authoritative characters in the loop would share their opinions.

thisrod 16y ago

It would be nice for this site to give more detailed advice on studying Haskell. Learning a language should be a side effect of studying its canon of programs. Is there a book that relates to Haskell as TAoCP does to machine code, SICP to Scheme, K&R to C, and the dragon book to Lex and Yacc?

scott_s 16y ago
I've been working my way through Yet Another Haskell Tutorial: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hal/docs/daume02yaht.pdf http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hal/docs/daume02yaht.pdf
dons 16y ago
Some advice is given in the "read more" link: http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/contents.html http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/contents.html
kanak 16y ago
> Is there a book that relates to Haskell as TAoCP does to machine code, SICP to Scheme, K&R to C, and the dragon book to Lex and Yacc? My vote would be for Richard Bird and Phil Wadler's Intro to functional programming using Haskell.
- thisrod 16y ago
  Thanks. That sounds good.
- batterseapower 16y ago
  Possibly more up to date in Hutton's Programming in Haskell. I've heard very good things about it: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/book.html http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/book.html
  - kanak 16y ago
    I've read both books and like them both. However, I prefer Bird/Wadler better because there's a pervasive "let's derive this"/"let's prove this" approach to the topics. By which I mean, given a spec, let's derive a program that does the task (and later, let's optimize this function using laws we know such as relations between map and filter, the laws of fold). Hutton takes this type of approach only in his final chapter. Hutton is definitely easier, and does a better job of teaching you the core of Haskell, however Bird/Wadler teaches you how to derive programs from spec (further covered in Bird's Pearls of Functional Programming book). I think the difference is like the one between How to Design Programs and Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.

jamesbritt 16y ago

I'm using Ubuntu Maverick. The debs page (http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=haskell-platform http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=haskell-platform) has 2010.1.0.0.1. How do I get 2011.2 for Maverick?

dons 16y ago
You'll need to wait for your distro maintainer to update the package set. Alternatively, you can build from source, using a generic Linux ghc, like so: http://www.vex.net/~trebla/haskell/haskell-platform.xhtml http://www.vex.net/~trebla/haskell/haskell-platform.xhtml
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  Cool, thanks for the link.

johnbender 16y ago

Shameless plug here, but if you're interested in installing the platform but don't want it clogging up your dev environment I've created a snap project skeleton that will do it for you with Vagrant and Chef. http://johnbender.us/2011/03/05/snap-setup-from-scratch-the-vagrant-way/ http://johnbender.us/2011/03/05/snap-setup-from-scratch-the-... Snap is the only extra install and you can quite easily alter the haskell platform version in the Vagrantfile. I'll be updating this tonight when I get home if you don't mind waiting.

itsnotvalid 16y ago

Actually you can install only needed packages from cabal using it as `cabal install`. Since it requires compiling the packages using either methods anyways.

anonymousDan 16y ago

Still no GUI programming support!

sgt 16y ago

I love Haskell, it's incredibly powerful, fast and elegant. However, I switched to Erlang because it's a heck of a lot easier to learn and it's quicker to sit down with it and produce something tangible. While I struggled to learn the concepts of Haskell, I immediately "clicked" with Erlang. I still wish to look up Haskell again though, it's very intriguing.