haskell-companies VS ghc-proposals

There's quite a few finance companies listed on this haskell-companies list (and also 7 different blockchain companies). Standard Chartered presented how they use Haskell at HIW 2021.

This is a useful list: https://github.com/erkmos/haskell-companies

There are only a handful of industry resources using Haskell, despite being a fully-fledged production language used by dozens of companies.

Here is the list of companies where Haskell is used.

You can find a list of some companies that use Haskell (some based in the US) here: https://github.com/erkmos/haskell-companies

luck i guess, i had no idea of it's existance until i started working there (as an intern). 4 years later i fucking love it, best thing that ever happened to me. r/haskell has some postings from time to time, and they also made a list of companies that use it. I work in chile btw.

> 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.