The community burned me in the end - fortunately a little committee took over my libraries when I left in a rage at some of its truly insufferable vindictive self appointed leaders. I think this comes and goes and the main body of users is tirelessly helpful.
But the rest of this is nonsense. The compiler is a flat out miracle, a monument to human understanding, and produces unbelievably fast programs given the weird and wonderful abstract material one hands to it.
I have no experience with content moderation but thought that the bureaucracy Twitter had in place was really a response to genuine market imperatives. I mean, remember the site was a leading recruitment site for foreign Isis fighters, to give an extreme example. The Elonites and the resurfaced 4chan types have this picture of faceless ‘woke’ elites who came from nowhere but the general elite miasma —- and sensibly cast aside by free speech Musk. But in fact it was a gruesome business and technical problem; in the end it will only end up being reproduced.
And this is why charter schools are such a sterling success? This is why West European schools are uniformly catastrophic wastelands compared to ours? -- This experiment has already been run repeatedly, there is nothing in it at all.
You aren't speaking to the principal point in the post Peaker links, which is accepted by Harper in the notes "As you know, in the eager world we tend to write out our own recursive functions, rather than use combinators", which is of course all any anyone cares about; with explicit recursion the user's IQ falls 50 points immediately. The whole discussion presupposes a mechanism for 'opting out' of default strictness or default laziness, which exists in many languages.
I found that if you go away from those 'core' libraries, quality drops sharply. Giving just one example may be unfair, but I do it anyways: the readline bindings (haskeline) didn't build on OS X for 2 major releases straight.
Haskeline is not bindings to readline or editline, but pure haskell. It does use libiconv, which is a chamber of horrors on OS X, and the source of your problems. But if you were using ghci you were using haskeline, so it wasn't that it couldn't be built. It is an extremely high quality library -- surprisingly, or perhaps not surprisingly, considering that it was written by a mathematician.
Sorry, you are right, libiconv was the problem. Still doesn't change that it couldn't be built on OS X for a long while (0.5 to 0.6 as far as I remember, 0.7 fixed things).
No, I didn't use ghci. I just tried to install darcs among other things.
This is puzzling. Did something instruct you that you needed to re-install cabal-install? You would already have had a copy as part of the Haskell Platform. You also already had `old-time` since it's part of the Haskell Platform too. Maybe something was overwritten in the `yum -y cabal-install`? There are several possibilities. It bugs me in any case that yum wasn't warning you that it had already installed `cabal-install`.
It is probably something very simple but would be much easier to figure out in real time, e.g. on the #haskell irc channel which generally handles such difficulties promptly. E.g. does a look at `ghc-pkg list` and `ghc-pkg check` suggest that something was broken?
(By the way, the comparison with Ruby and Python and Perl and Node is not that great; cabal is as much, or more, like `make` than `gem`, managing compilation, linking etc.; one uses it all the time locally where distribution is not in question; it looks like that is the aspect that you are bumping into.)
I didn't have "the Haskell Platform". So I got it from the same place I get all my other open source software, my distro. A quick "yum search cabal" told me where it was, I grabbed it.
And apparently it was "wrong". Becuase while it's "The Haskell Platform", it's not the correct Haskell Platform.
My point was much simpler than people here are trying to interpret: the Haskell world is a mess, and it's very complicated to get it running. So interesting tools like gitit (which I swear, I really wanted to try) don't get any attention. Expecting your audience to have the same bleeding edge copy of The Haskell Platform as you do is never going to work. Someone needs to actually do the work to package and distribute the software.
This is not true of Perl, or Python, or Ruby, or Node, all of which have recent packaged versions in the distro that run recent software.
I'm not sure that it's the wrong Haskell-Platform, nandemo's remark entails that it isnt. The naive installation would have been `yum install haskell-platform` or whatever, then `cabal update && cabal install gitit` I think you are getting bad advice because this is a completely inappropriate venue and people are having to make judgments on too little information; almost all such problems can be cleared up in 3-4 min on #haskell
You may be right about Perl &co but I invite you to look at my gem installation...
No, I'm pretty sure I have it right: "cabal-install" happens to be the package that contains the cabal binary. I installed that specifically because the instructions on the gitit page start with cabal and skip the Haskell installation; but the dependencies pull it all in automatically anyway. The problem is simply that it's too old, despite being the most recently packaged version on the most recent release of the distro. And the solution to that problem involves building the whole thing, which I'm not willing to do to try gitit.
The haskell-platform package, in every form and version on every platform also contains a cabal binary, see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/?package=haskell-p... to see this in fedora. Some of the advice you got here was I think not good because you pretty clearly affirm that you installed the fedora Haskell Platform. On #haskell this could all have been debugged in seconds after the difficulty first appeared.
But the rest of this is nonsense. The compiler is a flat out miracle, a monument to human understanding, and produces unbelievably fast programs given the weird and wonderful abstract material one hands to it.