www.haskell.org VS ghc-proposals

Haskell - a general-purpose functional language with many unique properties (purely functional, lazy, expressive types, STM, etc). You mentioned you dabbled in Haskell, why not try it again? (I've written about 7 things I learned from Haskell, and my book is linked at them bottom if you're interested :) )

Where you go is entirely up to you. According to haskell.org, Haskell jobs are a-plenty. sigh

✨ Supported by http://haskell.org

Btw here is the repo I am talking about: https://github.com/haskell-infra/www.haskell.org .

I just jumped into the wiki "Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 hours" which looks pretty good. (although some of the text explanation is hard to understand without context).. I used cabal to set up the starter project. Sublime editor seems to work OK and I just use the git Bash shell on windows to compile the program directly on the command line. So maybe this is all good enough for now (?). It seems installing it from haskell.org with ghcup was more straight forward than I thought.

We made or are making some (small for now) contributions to projects like Cabal and haskell.org, and we hope to ramp it up as time goes.

Maths 2 exists qnd it's called Haskell

Yeah, definitely. We're working on adding a guide[1] like that to haskell.org as we speak :)

If you have a chance, you could look over the PR and tell me whether this is roughly what you're thinking of.

[1]: https://github.com/haskell-infra/www.haskell.org/pull/214

p.s. I am also working on a PR for haskell.org that would hopefully make the webpage a bit more friendly for newcomers, also focused on clearly outlining the journey to get started with Haskell easily. It is not as opinionated as this blog post, but it still tried to make things a bit more straightforward: https://github.com/Martinsos/www.haskell.org/compare/master...Martinsos:www.haskell.org:getting-started .

Done

> 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.