5 ms·

Haskell is the worst. If you make something in Haskell you hate your end users. That being said I do a bunch in Haskell!

the_only_law 5y ago
What wrong with Haskell and distribution? I thought GHC produced native executables, maybe with some runtime libraries.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- elsjaako 5y ago
  On Arch Linux, you can install packages from the user repository. Basically these are scripts to I stall things that aren't in the normal package repository, and the default is to install from source. Whenever I install the Haskell package "aura", I need to be careful tot get "aura-bin". The install-from-source version will install a crazy number of Haskell packages. That said, not a problem with Haskell per se. I'm very happy with aura-bin.
- flatiron 5y ago
  i bet it may be better on different OS and distributions but on arch haskell is a friggin nightmare. at least the arch wiki page for it is more complaining about haskell than giving guidance: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Haskell https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Haskell
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    I see so many updates for Haskell-related packages all the damn time.
  - juxtapose 5y ago
    Well, if they ask for trouble, trouble will come. Haskell packaging is no different from Rust packaging: native executables statically linked with many small packages; both rely critically on cross-module inline for performance; no stable ABI. Arch Linux wants to provide an _up-to-date_ compatible set of Haskell packages, instead of relying on the established Stackage like what NixOS does. This certainly causes frustrations as they must do a lot of patches. End users don't benefit from this decision; they complain about a large number of tiny packages. Haskell devs don't benefit either, as they don't use packages provided by the OS -- just like any other Python/Node/Java/etc dev. Rust programmers use rustup+cargo, Python programmers use pip; likewise Haskell programmers use ghcup+cabal. That being said, I respect their efforts and the packagers (Felix Yan, et al.). They made great efforts in updating a large number of old packages to be compatible with GHC 9.x.
CuriousCosmic 5y ago
Haskell packaging/building is a lot more pleasant with Nix. Cabal and stack are too fragile imho and user settings can far too easily break packages. With nix you can still do customisation but I find nix at least puts a reasonable amount of assurance that your configuration isn't going to cause the entire build to explode.

the_only_law 5y ago

What wrong with Haskell and distribution? I thought GHC produced native executables, maybe with some runtime libraries.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
elsjaako 5y ago
On Arch Linux, you can install packages from the user repository. Basically these are scripts to I stall things that aren't in the normal package repository, and the default is to install from source. Whenever I install the Haskell package "aura", I need to be careful tot get "aura-bin". The install-from-source version will install a crazy number of Haskell packages. That said, not a problem with Haskell per se. I'm very happy with aura-bin.
flatiron 5y ago
i bet it may be better on different OS and distributions but on arch haskell is a friggin nightmare. at least the arch wiki page for it is more complaining about haskell than giving guidance: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Haskell https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Haskell
- johnisgood 5y ago
  I see so many updates for Haskell-related packages all the damn time.
- juxtapose 5y ago
  Well, if they ask for trouble, trouble will come. Haskell packaging is no different from Rust packaging: native executables statically linked with many small packages; both rely critically on cross-module inline for performance; no stable ABI. Arch Linux wants to provide an _up-to-date_ compatible set of Haskell packages, instead of relying on the established Stackage like what NixOS does. This certainly causes frustrations as they must do a lot of patches. End users don't benefit from this decision; they complain about a large number of tiny packages. Haskell devs don't benefit either, as they don't use packages provided by the OS -- just like any other Python/Node/Java/etc dev. Rust programmers use rustup+cargo, Python programmers use pip; likewise Haskell programmers use ghcup+cabal. That being said, I respect their efforts and the packagers (Felix Yan, et al.). They made great efforts in updating a large number of old packages to be compatible with GHC 9.x.

CuriousCosmic 5y ago

Haskell packaging/building is a lot more pleasant with Nix. Cabal and stack are too fragile imho and user settings can far too easily break packages. With nix you can still do customisation but I find nix at least puts a reasonable amount of assurance that your configuration isn't going to cause the entire build to explode.