cardano-node VS ghc-proposals

Cardano (ADA) – The Sustainability-Focused Blockchain

Hoskinson decided to support Ethereum classic after that and also launched Cardano.

This sluggish activity is hitting smaller cryptocurrencies like Cardano and Solana, which are seeing much slower growth than bitcoin. Trading platforms popular with retail investors, such as Robinhood, are moving to end support for trading these tokens, and the risk of an SEC crackdown has made institutional investors even more leery of them.

Cardano Node 8.1.1 is out. https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/releases/tag/8.1.1

Documentation on that can be found in https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/blob/master/doc/reference/configuring-a-node-using-yaml.md and https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/blob/master/doc/reference/cardano-governance.md.

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.