3 ms·

I understand that. I really like Haskell but I wonder if the type system is actually too strong for the real world. Generalizing algorithms sounds nice but if

• delluminatus 12y ago
  Wait, are you suggesting that the Haskell type system is too strong to write a package manager? That makes no sense. A much more valid reason that Cabal is annoying is that Haskell is a compiled language that uses static linking, unlike all the languages you mentioned, which are interpreted.
  • progman 12y ago
    SBCL also uses static linking. It doesn't recompile every ASDF imported library whenever I compile my application. It just does so when it is actually necessary. Why doesn't it work so easily in Haskell? I think it's the strong type system because every small code change can break the whole fragile structure of a Haskell application. It's like wheels in an old clock. If you break one jag of a gear then the whole system stops. You have to take apart all gears, change the affected one, and assemble everything together. Cabal hell breaks loose when you realize that someone changed the shape of a small gear, and you don't have access to the old one, except you stored some in your sandbox. Over time you get a whole farm of sandboxes full of obsolete parts. Then after a long time when you have to maintain some of the old code you realize that you have to edit even the foreign (!) libraries yourself because they are totally obsolete and incompatible to the current ones :-) Could that be the reason why there are (AFAIK) so many hackage projects aged or even unmaintained?
    • dragonwriter 12y ago
      > SBCL also uses static linking. It doesn't recompile every ASDF imported library whenever I compile my application. It just does so when it is actually necessary. Why doesn't it work so easily in Haskell? It does; in fact, in GHC -- the dominant Haskell implementation -- at least, its even easier: it doesn't recompile installed packages period. Packages are precompiled, and are merely linked when you compile an application that they depend on. Aside from it being factually incorrect, I'm not sure why this is even relevant to the discussion here -- "dependency hell" doesn't come from recompiling libraries when you recompile applications, it comes from conflicts between version requirements for dependencies among packages installed in a single repository (which is why sandboxing is a tool for addressing it.) It manifests when you try to install a package with dependency conflicts with another app, not when you try to compile an app that depends on the conflicting packages. > I think it's the strong type system because every small code change can break the whole fragile structure of a Haskell application. I think before you try to explain why something happens, you should first be sure that the thing you are describing actually happens. > Could that be the reason why there are (AFAIK) so many hackage projects aged or even unmaintained? I suspect the reason is the same that there are so many Ruby Gems in the main repos that are aged or even unmaintained (and I'd be surprised if this was different in any similar package database that wasn't actively culled of non-current projects -- which would have its own downside) -- the repository system is, by design, low cost to enter, so lots of things that have no strong demand or lasting commitment get posted to it.
• dllthomas 12y ago
  Cabal is not buggy. Or, more precisely, Cabal Hell is not the result of bugs in cabal. It is the result of 1) static linking with cross-module inlining, 2) a lot of diamond dependencies, and 3) a lot of breaking changes in the ecosystem. 1 is arguably an artifact of Haskell - performance really suffers if you can't do this - but also something that's arguably desirable generally. 2 is the result of the ability to provide abstractions and tools that are useful in a phenomenal number of contexts (mostly a good thing) and the failure of the language-as-standardized to provide these directly (mostly a bad thing). 3 is the consequence of an active community that values experimentation, is willing to try new things, and places an emphasis on Getting It Right. This is actually more mixed a blessing than it sounds.
• dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I really like Haskell but I wonder if the type system is actually too strong for the real world. Given the amount of "real world" programming that's been done with Haskell, I suspect not. > Generalizing algorithms sounds nice but if Haskell is so powerful, why is the Haskell community still not able to provide a convenient working package manager? I don't see a real problem with Cabal with sandboxes. > Perl has CPAN, Ruby has Gems, Lisp has ASDF and Quicklisp but Haskell is still stuck with buggy Cabal. Cabal doesn't seem to be buggy, and is about on the same level as Ruby Gems (I think the difference is that the version bounds conflicts that manifest at package install time in cabal occur at runtime with gems, because rubygems installs multiple versions in the local repository but needs to import a single version at runtime (bundler, which is separate from gems, addresses this, among other practical issues with gems.) Dependency hell is common to package systems that don't have a single version of every package that is curated to work with all other packages in the set -- CPAN isn't immune to it either, at least from what I've seen on the web (I haven't used Perl at all in many years, and only very little then.) Cabal now that is has sandboxes available, seems at least on par with gems. > FPcomplete is already working on a new solution with snapshots. Its really an intermediate stage between what package repositories/managers like cabal/gems/cpan provide and what Haskell Platform provides. Its not really a "new solution" for the same issue. [1] [1] See the discussion here: http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2012/11/solving-cabal-hell http://www.yesodweb.com/blog/2012/11/solving-cabal-hell Cabal (and gems, etc.) operate at level 2, the new Stackage from FP Complete is at level 3, Haskell Platform is at level 4.