haskell-language-server VS ghc-proposals

The advent of language server protocol made possible the creation of HLS (Haskell Language Server), and there are plugins for many editors, such as vscode-haskell, that allow you to have auto-complete, auto-import, and automatic function signatures—also available to your editor of choice. The whole feedback loop of editing, compiling, and running is greatly improved.

HLS 2.3.0.0 is currently broken on Windows.

The Haskell community has been focusing on tooling and IDE support in the last several years. Haskell-Language-Server is a huge improvment, so the experience is probably much better than you remember, but it'll still be a while before it catches up with Rust.

static-ls is a low memory language server for Haskell that serves as an alternative to (hls)[https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server] with less functionality by using statically generated information. It is intended for (Highly recommend hls instead if you aren't having these issues):

I think the corresponding HLS PR is https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/pull/3462, so it isn't landed yet but hopefully can be part of a HLS release before too long. (I'm not sure if it will make it in to the very next release because we're due one out to support GHC 9.6.1 pretty soon.)

> 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.