4 ms·
If it's really just a "hardcoded whitelist" that causes trouble, said fork would truly be easy to maintain.
by henearkr 4y ago
If it's really just a "hardcoded whitelist" that causes trouble, said fork would truly be easy to maintain.
- kadoban 4y agoUntil they do some other halfbaked thing that's harder to follow along with. When people show you who they are, believe them the first time. Compilers are supposed to be boring, especially when your language has ~exactly 1. If you can't trust the people maintaining it, it's too much risk to take. Having to do an entire rewrite in a different language can easily kill a company or a project.
- peteradio 4y agoWould you need to maintain a fork at all? Couldn't you obliterate the rule when building the compiler?
- josephcsible 4y agoWhat's the difference between that and a fork?
- peteradio 4y agoOne doesn't require a "community of maintainers", its an adhoc tool you use to get your own stuff done, every project has them what is one more?
- Volundr 4y agoUntil another change against the community interest comes along. You only trust the "benevolent dictator" for as long as they remain benevolent.
- bitmapper 4y agoIt would be, if the code wasn't so horrifically bitrotted at this point. GHC has changed a lot since Elm last got any meaningful update, and they decided to use unsafe GHC primitives everywhere that have no support guarantee. You have to fix a bunch of issues with the compiler source before it will even compile on a relatively new version of GHC.