wither the Platform

[George Colpitts]

+1

An important example of the last point is  an introductory programming
course using Haskell. The students will mostly have  Windows and Mac
laptops. Having a very simple (click here) way to get students set up with
Haskell is important for such a course.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  I notice that in the new Haskell pages, the Platform is definitely not
> the recommended way to go:
>
>
>
> Like Richard, I was astonished by this. I always thought that the Haskell
> Platform was *the* route of choice to install GHC, together with a
> respectable set of libraries.   It’s certainly what I install on a new
> machine!
>
>
>
> Let’s not forget the large but non-vocal set of ill-informed and/or
> would-be users, who want a simple answer to “How do I install GHC?”.  It
> may be that the HP formula needs re-visiting, but I think it’s very
> important that we continue to give a very simple (click here) answer to
> that question.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Libraries [mailto:libraries-bounces at haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Lentczner
> *Sent:* 21 March 2015 17:54
> *To:* ghc-devs at haskell.org; Haskell Libraries;
> haskell-platform at projects.haskell.org;
> haskell-infrastructure at community.galois.com
> *Subject:* wither the Platform
>
>
>
> I'm wondering how we are all feeling about the platform these days....
>
>
>
> I notice that in the new Haskell pages, the Platform is definitely not the
> recommended way to go: The main download pages suggests the compiler and
> base libraries as the first option - and the text for the Platform (second
> option) pretty much steers folks away from it. Of the per-OS download
> pages, only the Windows version even mentions it.
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we don't want to consider continuing with it? It is a
> lot of community effort to put out a Platform release - we shouldn't do it
> if we don't really want it.
>
>
>
> That said, I note that the other ways to "officially get" Haskell look, to
> my eye, very ad hoc. Many of the options involve multiple steps, and
> exactly what one is getting isn't clear. It hardly looks like there is now
> an "official, correct" way to setup Haskell.
>
>
>
> The Platform arose in an era before sandboxes and before curated library
> sets like Stackage and LTS. Last time we set direction was several years
> ago. These new features and development have clearly changed the landscape
> for use to reconsider what to do.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think the status quo for the Platform is now viable - mostly as
> evidenced by waning interest in maintaining it. I offer several ways we
> could proceed:
>
>
>
> *1) Abandon the Platform.* GHC is release in source and binary form.
> Other package various installers, with more or less things, for various
> OSes.
>
>
>
> *2) Slim the Platform.* Pare it back to GHC + base + a smaller set of
> "essential" libs + tools. Keeps a consistent build layout and installation
> mechanism for Haskell.
>
>
>
> *3) Re-conceive the Platform.* Take a very minimal install approach,
> coupled with close integration with a curated library set that makes it
> easy to have a rich canonical, stable environment. This was the core idea
> around my "GPS Haskell" thoughts from last September - but there would be
> much to work out in this direction.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> — Mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://projects.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-platform/attachments/20150323/45e6fbd6/attachment.htm>