ihp VS ghc-proposals

I found IHP straightforward:

https://ihp.digitallyinduced.com/

despite not remembering much haskell!

This assumes you can get past nix for the install.

I find IHP well-designed. I just wish the licensing scheme were more transparent.

You can find the docs at https://ihp.digitallyinduced.com/ and some getting started videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLl9Sjq6Nzc&list=PLenFm8BWuKlS0IaE31DmKB_PbkMLmwWmG

In case this got you interested in Haskell, and you want a good way to start your Haskell journey (and have something to apply the optimization handbook to), check out IHP. It's the Rails/Laravel of the Haskell world. You can start here https://ihp.digitallyinduced.com/Guide/index.html or check it out on GitHub here https://github.com/digitallyinduced/ihp

At IHP we've been using Algora for a while now and it works really great. Here's e.g. one PR that was merged last week with a bounty attached https://github.com/digitallyinduced/ihp/issues/1621 Everything was set up in less than 15 minutes and ioannis and zafer have been super helpful with any questions we had.

In general I think this is a good direction and an interesting take on the open question around sustainable open source. Congrats on the launch and keep up the great work! :)

You could contribute to IHP! We have some great docs to get started here https://github.com/digitallyinduced/ihp/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md And we have some low hanging fruits in GitHub issues for you to get started with, e.g. https://github.com/digitallyinduced/ihp/issues/1601 (also there's always lots of activity in the IHP Slack, in case you have any questions/need help)

> 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.