idris VS ghc-proposals

there're a lot of languages that can target js/wasm these days, some of which are even self-hosting (ghc) and can target browser (ghcjs), a lot are written in haskell which again can target browser but the closest to my request i've found is an old thread of idris supposedely compilable by ghcjs and while there are plenty "run your code in browser (via server compilation)" services i've yet to see a working "running compiler in browser in browser example"

So apparently there's a package manager called Inigo, but there are only a few packages in it. There's an idris-hackers group on github, that's linked from the idris-lang.org page. None of those libraries appear in Inigo though. So seems that Inigo isn't really a thing people are using.

Here's Idris' Nat optimisations

As of 2013, Idris does not want to even support user defined Unicode operators, for the usual reasons.

This is really just a matter of how much syntax sugar you want to implement. Idris has this already, and there’s a proposal to add it to Haskell too [0]. But none of this changes the core properties of the system which make it monadic.

[0] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/issues/527

> I think Haskell needs a way to graduate (or retire) language extensions

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601

Additionally, while this proposal is focused on the simple implementation and so in the current proposal or patterns do not bind any variables as per #522, if we do get settled on syntax and then later wish to expand to allow binding variables as in #43, then the syntax is again clean and discoverable.

Yeah, a relatively natural thing would be to be able to opt-in to having the HasField instances be available in all contexts. The (not yet implemented, but accepted) "Modifiers" GHC proposal might be nice for that.

The local modules proposal imo is excellent as-is.

Why would you drop TypeFamilies? It seems fairly popular, given that it was just one vote short of getting added to GHC2021. Do you consider it a less-ideal compromise, that is subsumed by your second proposal (Core with GRTT)?

as syntax is contentious a topic as ever, David (the main proposal author) and I would like to invite you to give your input on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/585, where we propose to change the syntax of the accepted proposal #522 introducing Or patterns. In particular, we'd like to know

This looks great, congratulations on completing it! I assume you didn’t get an opportunity to evaluate the delimited continuations based eff library? It would’ve been nice to see Cont included as one of the effects covered, though perhaps not available in all the systems you looked at? Maybe some future work.

I do hope qualified exports are available someday: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283

Right. Being able to disable "custom type warnings" at use sites was part of an earlier proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/454) but it ended up being shelved.