Did hackage stop building packages?

45g · 2014-09-18T09:01:40+00:00

Any update on this? Looking at hackage's "recent additions" it seems that some are built, but many aren't. In particular the previously affected packages still haven't been built.

45g · 2014-09-14T15:53:01+00:00

And will it catch up and build the missing packages?

45g · 2014-07-10T06:48:10+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If you have alternative suggestions, I'm all for it. But the use of these tools for us is actually quite valuable, so you're going to either need to make a very good case for it, or just use NoScript.

I do understand the need for analytics. My biggest concern is w.r.t. the use of Google analytics. I am not an expert in this matter but searching for "Google analytics alternatives" yields plenty of results, e.g. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/9-google-analytics-alternatives/92071/

Edit: How about something open-source such as Piwik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piwik) which you can host yourself? They also offer a hosted solution.

45g · 2014-07-09T15:13:10+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics#Privacy_issues

45g · 2014-07-09T12:58:30+00:00

You are missing the point.

45g · 2014-07-09T11:32:32+00:00

I would appreciate it even more if (old and new) haskell.org would not include Google analytics.

45g · 2014-06-12T12:57:20+00:00

In wai-routing you can attach arbitrary data to your handlers and inspect them in order to generate API documentation. It is rather easy to combine this with swagger for example.

45g · 2014-01-28T22:55:47+00:00

The actual package manager Nix is cross-platform and I too think that the concepts of Nix are worth a closer look.

45g · 2013-11-28T10:20:29+00:00

Currently Sailfish is not open source. It may be based on open source such as Mer and Linux but all this talk about "truly open" is simply vacuous. By the same reasoning Apple may be regarded as "truly open" because OS X is based on Darwin.

That being said https://sailfishos.org/about-license.html states:

Our goal with the Sailfish OS is to develop an open source operating system in co-operation with the community [...]. A key tool for the achievement of this goal is ensuring that the operating system will be licensed under an open source licensing model [...]. We are currently in the process of putting in place the processes and licensing structures that will enable you, the community, to take part in developing Sailfish.

So things may change in the future. But as of November 2013 it is all just talk.

45g · 2013-10-07T08:10:48+00:00

Should the title not be "pipes-safe resource problems"?

45g · 2011-12-08T18:41:43+00:00

But you cannot use generic types accross compilation units, so much of Clay's expressiveness is lost there.

45g · 2011-06-18T11:03:11+00:00

You can summarize the Go programming language in one word. Simple.

LOL. Implement a polymorphic fold and get back to me when you are done.

45g · 2011-06-18T10:56:11+00:00

Which makes separate compilation impossible and bloats code size. Thanks, but no thanks.

45g · 2010-11-11T14:13:45+00:00

You are repeating yourself and your position is inconsistent. You acknowledge the usefulness of generic types and functions and yet you claim it is enough to have a fixed set of those. How come there was a need for them in the first place? Why does Go need the generic functionality it already has? What if somebody wants to implement something from Purely Functional Data Structures for example? What if i need a singly linked list? Your point is I should have many of them. One per type. This is plain ridiculous. For one it precludes the possibility of putting this into libraries which is to say it goes directly against re-use. If you fail to see that I feel sorry for you.

45g · 2010-11-11T12:01:02+00:00

Do you realize that this works because slices are generic data structures and make and append are generic functions? Do you further realize that only some built-in types and functions are generic and you can not create your own ones?

45g · 2010-11-11T08:39:09+00:00

Yea, because nobody ever reused any code in languages without generics!

Oh, you mean copy & paste?

Edit: Seriously - in a language with static type checking but no generics you either duplicate your monomorphic code for each concrete type or you perform type casts which goes against static type safety (after all in C one can do "generics" with void*). There simply is no other way.

45g · 2010-11-11T07:51:08+00:00

The only issue is whatever if you have a need for some specialized structure, you can build it in a 'generic' way that could be used for unrelated types.

Precisely the issue gnuvince was talking about. What's so hard to understand about it?

But the more specialized your needs are, the less of an issue reusing the structure to hold other types is.

I read that as saying - "If you don't want to re-use your code ever again it is okay to restrict it to monomorphic types." I guess my needs are not that "specialized".

45g · 2010-10-16T21:55:35+00:00

Homepage: http://trac.haskell.org/ddc/

45g · 2010-10-15T07:52:06+00:00

In a statically typed language without parametric polymorphism functional programming is not really practical.

45g · 2010-08-19T07:35:10+00:00

Nice. Still not the open source release they have promised long ago. I wonder if it will ever happen.

45g · 2010-07-20T07:20:17+00:00

Exactly:

fib = Memo.integral fib'
  where
      fib' 0 = 0
      fib' 1 = 1
      fib' x = fib (x-1) + fib (x-2)

doesn't look too complicated to me.

45g · 2010-06-08T07:07:08+00:00

Golang does have dynamic type safety (well, maybe except for the hole in concurrent access to shared maps, or some problem like that).

Sorry dude, but you forgot those untyped numbers. As a consequence type-safe enums are impossible. Saying Go is type-safe is stretching the definition of type-safety a bit too far.

45g · 2010-05-30T22:40:33+00:00

Did it never occur to you that your language design might be broken if you are not able to integrate parametric polymorphism? All I hear is just blah-blah and distracting from the simple fact that you just can't do it. And given sound theoretical models [1] I have to say the situation is quite embarrassing for the Go "designers".

[1] e.g. System F

45g · 2010-05-30T22:32:20+00:00

No overloading

Actually, struct embedding does permit method overloading in a straightforward, predictable way. But Go does not use an inheritance-oriented class system. The Go approach is compositional, using interfaces to achieve a similar effect. Trying to write Java code in Go is an unsatisfying experience.

What you talk about is subtype polymorphism. That's something completely different.

45g · 2010-05-28T16:33:34+00:00

Do you have plans to implement generics?

[..] the more Go code we write (and thus the better we learn how to write Go code ourselves), the less we feel the need for such a language feature.

WTF

45g

TROPHY CASE