3 ms·
I have found it ironic that Haskell packages seem a lot more brittle than packages in a language like Ruby. It's possible to get into "dll hell" with gems of co
by cageface 14y ago
I have found it ironic that Haskell packages seem a lot more brittle than packages in a language like Ruby. It's possible to get into "dll hell" with gems of course, but my limited experience fiddling around with Cabal suggests it can be much more difficult to get exactly the right set of versions in Haskell.
Maybe this means that there are a lot of undetected bugs lurking in the typical gemset but at least you can get something off the ground.
- fusiongyro 14y agocabal-install leaves something to be desired in the dependency management area. There are active projects under way to improve the situation, largely borrowing from Ruby along the lines of rvm and bundler.
- Uchikoma 14y agoI don't think this has anything to do with Ruby (dynamic) or Haskell (static). Scala is a dll hell b/c of binary incompatibility and a community that wants all frameworks on bleeding edge Scala (RC even) versions. Compared to Java, where many frameworks still work with Java 1.5 and dependency management is a joy.
- cageface 14y agoThe difference seems to be that languages with dynamic type systems or very simple static type systems aren't as difficult as languages that encode a lot more information into their types. Maybe it's not fair to generalize from just those few examples though.