servant VS semantic-source

> do you really have to understand language extensions?

You do when your code doesn't compile and you're trying to figure out what the error message means, or when the library you want to use makes heavy use of it for even basic functionality.

> These days one just enables GHC2021

My experience was pre-GHC2021. I basically had to enable at a minimum 5-6 language extensions in every single file.

> Mostly they're just about removing unnecessary restrictions from the older standard.

Yeah, those ones are usually fine. I have zero objection to things like FlexibleInstances or DeriveFoldable.

> Could you give an example?

I believe I was trying to implement Central Authentication Service using Servant. However, that required returning a custom HTTP status code. There has been an open Github issue for this since 2017, but it seems to require basically rewriting the entire framework: https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/732

Looking back at it now Servant does have "ServerError", but that basically requires giving up all the advantages Servant claims to have and I believe it was not a viable option at the time. Looking at the timeline I was probably also on Servant 0.15, and there seems to have been a rewrite since then.

I vaguely recall running into a similar issue trying to interact with a database, but I can't remember the details of that.

a HasSwagger instance for NamedRoutes was added in May 2022 (in this commit) but there hasn't been a package release since March

If you don't like this style, the usual alternative is to change mkDualAuthHandler to take two additional arguments, Proxy tag0 and Proxy tag1 (as e.g. lots of Servant functions do, for historical reasons).

Dunno if this is helpful, but I found this github issue about ResourceT and servant https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/1345

And what about the cabal repl --with-compiler=doctest, which was added recently, in doctest v0.20? I recently submitted a PR for Servant to use this in place of GHC environment files, because it seems less finicky to me. Was this a bad idea?

I asked a somewhat relevant question recently. Maybe you'll find this discussion somewhat helpful: https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/1547; two packages were talked about. One of the folks from Well Typed replied, and said they tried it recently (and worked fine).

You are highly encouraged to test this release out and let us know what you think ! For bug reports, features requests or any kind of feedback, just open a ticket on our issue tracker.

Even slower than :<|> quadratic compile time in number of routes?

Check this out https://github.com/haskell-servant/servant/issues/335#issuecomment-172300487

One production example I know: GitHub code navigation is written in Haskell https://github.com/github/semantic

ah, easy. it's because support has not been added into https://github.com/github/semantic which is the tech that powers the GitHub UI. Adding support is pretty easy/mainly glue code [1] that imports the tree sitter API.

[1] https://github.com/github/semantic/blob/793a876ae45d38a6bd17...

GitHub used Haskell for implementing Semantic, a command-line tool for parsing, analyzing, and comparing source code.

As far as engineering effort, you can read this GitHub comment for an overview of where we’d like to take the project in the future. The tl;dr here is that the open sum type view of the world made it very concise to fold over syntax trees (since such a view of data is ultimately unityped, recursion schemes Just Work), but the tradeoff thus associated—namely, that you have to parse a concrete syntax tree into an open-sum view (a complicated and painful-to-read process), that you can never really be sure how a given syntax tree is shaped, and that the types don’t help you nearly as much as they could—proved to be too onerous to deal with. Going forward, we’re generating syntax types from the AST once per target language, and working on an abstraction (probably via this generated code; I made five separate efforts at using Generics for this, and failed every time) that recovers at least some of the convenience of recursion schemes. It turns out that recursion schemes over a mutually recursive syntax tree—as pretty much every language’s syntax trees are, in practice—are pretty much an unsolved problem, especially when extended to languages like TypeScript, which have hundreds of different syntax nodes.

Meanwhile their Tree-Sitter-based semantic parser[1] looks abandoned. There is even rotting for years pull request[2] adding support of the same stack graphs into it.

[1] https://github.com/github/semantic

[2] https://github.com/github/semantic/pull/535

The semantic team at GitHub uses it for statically analyzing the dozens of languages that end up in GitHub repositories: https://github.com/github/semantic/blob/eaf13783838861fe5eb6cd46d59354774a8eb88d/docs/why-haskell.md

Yesterday I was looking for some examples of projects using tree-sitter (which is C) when I found GitHub's semantic, used to analyze and compare source code, and written in Haskell: https://github.com/github/semantic/