[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       haskell-cafe
Subject:    Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell 2014
From:       Nicola Gigante <nicola.gigante () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-11-30 15:25:36
Message-ID: 54EA2BCB-7F32-42C6-9D09-14346EBAAAF5 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Il giorno 30/nov/2014, alle ore 15:59, Roman Cheplyaka <roma@ro-che.info> h=
a scritto:

> The language (=ABGHC Haskell=BB) is evolving quite rapidly, it's just no-=
one
> is really interested in maintaining the standard anymore.
> =

> I don't think it should disappoint you, unless you're a language
> researcher or compiler writer.

Hi.

I=92m a newcomer to the Haskell world, coming from C++ where the standard =

and conformity to the standard is of great value.

Given the tendency of commercial implementors to deviate with custom
and often bad-designed features, having an international standard that has =
to be
followed by anyone is a great thing (and implementors are unfortunately
very good at deviating anyway).

At first, the existence of the Haskell standard gave me a good impression.
Haskell is not like other languages like python or Java that, at the end, h=
ave
the One True Implementation. Haskell has born from the community, and
there always have been a multiplicity of implementations. In this context,
having a common standard to implement makes sense, to aid compatibility.

But Haskell is not like C++ neither. Haskell implementations are not driven
by big corps, and features that deviates from the =93standard=94 are not de=
signed =

and implemented by marketing departments, but they are instead often the
implementation of new and innovative ideas from the research world. =


For this reason, it=92s not so useful to crystallize the language to some-y=
ears-old
standard when the compilers implementors, users and researchers are so
good at evolving the language in a coherent way.

Here, I think, the point is the community: the language can continue to
grow and evolve in the presence of multiple implementations by ensuring
collaborations between the communities of the different compilers.
If this continues to be done, I don=92t think a formal standard, released =

every x years, is needed.

What, I think, needs to be improved, instead, is the way the community
handles the evolving of the libraries used in the haskell world, but I know
that=92s a whole other story.

Best Regards,
Nicola
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]