Newest at the top
| 2025-03-26 20:42:24 +0100 | ash3en1 | (~Thunderbi@31.16.203.214) ash3en |
| 2025-03-26 20:42:01 +0100 | target_i | (~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) target_i |
| 2025-03-26 20:38:54 +0100 | <mauke> | 11 people is a lot |
| 2025-03-26 20:34:58 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) peterbecich |
| 2025-03-26 20:31:14 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 20:30:28 +0100 | <EvanR> | that picture of the haskell committee had at least 11 |
| 2025-03-26 20:27:34 +0100 | <EvanR> | this number of people who decided what got included in GHC, between 1 and 11, is what? |
| 2025-03-26 20:27:29 +0100 | <monochrom> | More voters and more equal votes would be nice, but the logistic nightmare of running the voting process... |
| 2025-03-26 20:26:45 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-03-26 20:26:26 +0100 | <monochrom> | which in turn is still way more than who used to decide what got included in Python. >:) |
| 2025-03-26 20:25:34 +0100 | <monochrom> | That's still way more people than who decide what got included in GHC. |
| 2025-03-26 20:24:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | that's so elitist |
| 2025-03-26 20:23:53 +0100 | <EvanR> | according to the comments, what got included in GHC2021 was up to the votes of 11 people |
| 2025-03-26 20:23:46 +0100 | Digitteknohippie | Digit |
| 2025-03-26 20:19:55 +0100 | <monochrom> | -WYouWroteYourOwnRecursion |
| 2025-03-26 20:19:15 +0100 | <EvanR> | smh |
| 2025-03-26 20:19:11 +0100 | <EvanR> | which is purely syntactic |
| 2025-03-26 20:18:57 +0100 | <EvanR> | MultiWayIf is "still undecided" |
| 2025-03-26 20:18:22 +0100 | <monochrom> | If you s/simple haskell/industrial haskell/ you begin to see why, for example, OverloadedStrings makes it into level 0. |
| 2025-03-26 20:17:57 +0100 | <EvanR> | and StrictData |
| 2025-03-26 20:17:24 +0100 | <EvanR> | OverlappingInstances is lumped into the same "don't use this" as DataKinds |
| 2025-03-26 20:17:10 +0100 | <geekosaur> | (except hierarchical modules and maybe FFI) |
| 2025-03-26 20:16:39 +0100 | <geekosaur> | -XHaskell98, no extensions 🙂 |
| 2025-03-26 20:15:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | RankNTypes? I mean yes, it's great. Is it simple haskell though? |
| 2025-03-26 20:15:49 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Morj> A weak version of antifeatures is warnings, like -Wincomplete-record-updates |
| 2025-03-26 20:15:31 +0100 | <EvanR> | OverloadedStrings is in level 0 "use at will never causes problems" category |
| 2025-03-26 20:15:09 +0100 | <geekosaur> | you can sort of do that with hlint btw |
| 2025-03-26 20:15:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | https://gist.github.com/mightybyte/6c469c125eb50e0c2ebf4ae26b5adfff |
| 2025-03-26 20:14:55 +0100 | <EvanR> | I found kind of a ridiculous list |
| 2025-03-26 20:14:51 +0100 | <monochrom> | It is still valuable to declare what you ignore, and the machine checks that you really haven't used that. |
| 2025-03-26 20:14:45 +0100 | <EvanR> | I scrolled down to see what to ignore |
| 2025-03-26 20:13:31 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-03-26 20:13:01 +0100 | <monochrom> | It states a vision that by now has long fizzled. |
| 2025-03-26 20:12:36 +0100 | <monochrom> | It doesn't really state which parts to ignore. |
| 2025-03-26 20:11:42 +0100 | <EvanR> | like simplehaskell.org |
| 2025-03-26 20:11:12 +0100 | <EvanR> | it would be simpler to just ignore parts of the language |
| 2025-03-26 20:11:04 +0100 | <monochrom> | I can. Half of the language is removed, and the remaining half is not even what I want. OK I'm just joking. >:) |
| 2025-03-26 20:10:27 +0100 | rvalue- | rvalue |
| 2025-03-26 20:08:49 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Quit: Leaving.) |
| 2025-03-26 20:08:07 +0100 | <yin> | the more i think of it the less i find arguments against it |
| 2025-03-26 20:04:41 +0100 | rvalue | (~rvalue@user/rvalue) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 20:04:22 +0100 | <yin> | we should have language contractions, where features could be optionally removed from the language, and then have the most popular retractions crystalize with new language versions |
| 2025-03-26 20:03:50 +0100 | rvalue- | (~rvalue@user/rvalue) rvalue |
| 2025-03-26 20:00:49 +0100 | caconym | (~caconym@user/caconym) caconym |
| 2025-03-26 20:00:12 +0100 | zungi | (~tory@user/andrewchawk) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-03-26 20:00:08 +0100 | caconym | (~caconym@user/caconym) (Quit: bye) |
| 2025-03-26 19:59:44 +0100 | jco | (~jco@78-70-217-44-no600.tbcn.telia.com) jco |
| 2025-03-26 19:58:15 +0100 | sarna | (~sarna@d192-22.icpnet.pl) () |
| 2025-03-26 19:53:29 +0100 | <monochrom> | Do people even first check whether their post is readable before sharing the link? I guess they don't care. |
| 2025-03-26 19:52:47 +0100 | <monochrom> | It's why whenever someone posts something on pastebin.com, I just click "raw" and be done with it. |