[Haskell-cafe] Is www.haskell.org down?
Sean Leather
Sean
Dougal Stanton
I also can't get any response from it. It's not just you!
D
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskel...@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Jon Harrop
> 2008/8/14 Sean Leather <lea...@cs.uu.nl>:
> > I can't reach www.haskell.org , and I'm having withdrawal issues.
>
> I also can't get any response from it. It's not just you!
Haskell.org probably broke under stress after someone posted this link on the
caml-list:
http://www.reddit.com/comments/6v2nl/ghc_project_switches_to_git/
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e
Don Stewart
> On Thursday 14 August 2008 14:03:48 Dougal Stanton wrote:
> > 2008/8/14 Sean Leather <lea...@cs.uu.nl>:
> > > I can't reach www.haskell.org , and I'm having withdrawal issues.
> >
> > I also can't get any response from it. It's not just you!
>
> Haskell.org probably broke under stress after someone posted this link on the
> caml-list:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/comments/6v2nl/ghc_project_switches_to_git/
>
That wasn't the reason Jon. I doubt the caml-list would generate enough
traffic anyway.
-- Don
Don Stewart
thing on the Haskell list, have a look at his contributions over on the
OCaml list,
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.caml.general/43430
Some choice quotes:
"almost all of the examples of Haskell's use in industry are fakes"
"nobody has ever done anything significant using Haskell"
Jon's the primary source of FUD against Haskell and its community, as he
goes around promoting his site in other functional programming
communities. This kind of behaviour's been going on for a few years now,
sadly.
It's all rather disappointing.
Gianfranco Alongi
--
Patience is the last resort for those unable to take action
Ketil Malde
> By the way, for those wondering why Jon Harrop would say such an unusual
> thing on the Haskell list, have a look at his contributions over on the
> OCaml list,
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.caml.general/43430
Well, to be perfectly honest:
| > What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing OCaml to Haskell?
|
| Techically, predictable performance, high performance on x64, tools like
| camlp4 and language features including records, functors, polymorphic
| variants and structurally-typed objects are probably the main advantages of
| OCaml over Haskell.
I think we can match language features with classes, concurrency,
GADTs, STM, and so on. Predictable performance is a point, especially
memory-wise. At least, I sometimes get surprises when a usage pattern
causes too much or too little laziness. GHC uses a *lot* of memory in
general, and in particular on 64 bits.
I belive OCaml has a simpler semantics, and thus it is easier to
optimize performance, especially for a beginner. Decent programmers
get decent performance with Haskell, see e.g. the language shootout.
| Non-technically, OCaml has more well-tested libraries, more practical books
| (e.g. my own), more high-profile open source projects (e.g. FFTW has millions
| of users)
I'm not so sure about the library thing, it seems that Haskell has a
bigger community, and while some libraries are less maintained than
one would wish, some are pretty solid. Clearly, OCaml has been used
in some serious settings, although I don't see why the number of users
of one particular application should be significant to me.
| There are far more practically-minded people in the OCaml community
| and that is reflected in the much larger number of commercial
| products that use OCaml.
This almost reads as damning with faint praise. Do we have the
educated, smart people, and a larger number of open source products?
| Tangentially, OCaml has a successful relative in F# whereas
| Haskell's close relatives are extinct.
Or you could say that OCaml is one member of a family of languages,
each slightly different, while Haskell managed to unify the
ecosystem and community around a single standard. It would bear
pointing out that just about every new, cool feature in emerging
languages seem to come from Haskell.
| nobody has ever done anything significant using Haskell
He is entitled to his opinion of what is significant or not, just as I
am entitled to my opinion of his opinion.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Jon Harrop
> Don Stewart <do...@galois.com> writes:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.caml.general/43430
>
> Well, to be perfectly honest:
> | > What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing OCaml to Haskell?
> |
> | Techically, predictable performance, high performance on x64, tools like
> | camlp4 and language features including records, functors, polymorphic
> | variants and structurally-typed objects are probably the main advantages
> | of OCaml over Haskell.
>
> I think we can match language features with classes, concurrency,
> GADTs, STM, and so on. Predictable performance is a point, especially
> memory-wise. At least, I sometimes get surprises when a usage pattern
> causes too much or too little laziness. GHC uses a *lot* of memory in
> general, and in particular on 64 bits.
Yes. Compilation speed as well.
> I belive OCaml has a simpler semantics, and thus it is easier to
> optimize performance, especially for a beginner. Decent programmers
> get decent performance with Haskell, see e.g. the language shootout.
Isn't Darcs an obvious counter example?
> | Non-technically, OCaml has more well-tested libraries, more practical
> | books (e.g. my own), more high-profile open source projects (e.g. FFTW
> | has millions of users)
>
> I'm not so sure about the library thing, it seems that Haskell has a
> bigger community,
What gave you that impression?
According to the Debian and Ubuntu package popularity contest results, OCaml
currently has 10,635 registered installs compared to 6,606 for GHC. Moreover,
this ratio has been constant for several years now.
> and while some libraries are less maintained than
> one would wish, some are pretty solid. Clearly, OCaml has been used
> in some serious settings, although I don't see why the number of users
> of one particular application should be significant to me.
There are data for more applications, of course:
Debian and Ubuntu registered installs
-------------------------------------
184,574: FFTW ( 14,298 lines of OCaml)
12,866: Unison ( 23,993 lines of OCaml)
7,286: MLDonkey (171,332 lines of OCaml)
4,365: Darcs ( 3,939 lines of Haskell)
4,066: FreeTennis ( 7,419 lines of OCaml)
4,057: Planets ( 3,296 lines of OCaml)
3,465: HPodder ( 2,225 lines of Haskell)
2,965: LEdit ( 2,048 lines of OCaml)
2,822: Hevea ( 11,596 lines of OCaml)
2,657: Polygen ( 1,331 lines of OCaml)
That is 221,293 installs of popular OCaml software compared to only 7,830
installs of Haskell software.
And 235,312 lines of OCaml code tested by many users compared to only 6,164
lines of well-tested Haskell code.
> | There are far more practically-minded people in the OCaml community
> | and that is reflected in the much larger number of commercial
> | products that use OCaml.
>
> This almost reads as damning with faint praise. Do we have the
> educated, smart people, and a larger number of open source products?
The above statistics certainly that OCaml has four times as many popular open
source projects as Haskell.
> | Tangentially, OCaml has a successful relative in F# whereas
> | Haskell's close relatives are extinct.
>
> Or you could say that OCaml is one member of a family of languages,
> each slightly different, while Haskell managed to unify the
> ecosystem and community around a single standard.
Or you could say that the only popular Haskell is GHC's proprietary dialect.
Either way, I think it is clear that OCaml has more users than GHC and
OCaml+F# have far more users than all Haskell dialects combined.
> It would bear pointing out that just about every new, cool feature in
> emerging languages seem to come from Haskell.
Like F#'s active patterns?
> | nobody has ever done anything significant using Haskell
>
> He is entitled to his opinion of what is significant or not, just as I
> am entitled to my opinion of his opinion.
Have any open source projects written in Haskell ever garnered a significant
number of users?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
On Aug 14, 2008, at 16:05 , Jon Harrop wrote:
> (spew)
Where exactly did we pick up this, er, individual? Would they please
take it back as defective?
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] all...@kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] all...@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
John Van Enk
not going to lead to anything useful (and seemingly, this is intentional).
I'd suggest killing this thread so that more useful conversation can receive
focus.
/jve
--
/jve
Don Stewart
> > I'm not so sure about the library thing, it seems that Haskell has a
> > bigger community,
>
> What gave you that impression?
>
> According to the Debian and Ubuntu package popularity contest results, OCaml
> currently has 10,635 registered installs compared to 6,606 for GHC. Moreover,
> this ratio has been constant for several years now.
Why, say, do we see the following results:
* The #haskell IRC channel contains 500 people, the #ocaml channel 70?
* 250 unique developers have uploaded 600 new libraries to hackage.haskell.org in the past year.
How's the Caml Hump going?
* On Arch Linux, we find 480 Haskell packages and tools, but only 21
for OCaml. Why the difference?
* The caml-list had 315 posts for June, 08, while haskell-cafe had
over 1400
Your statistics focus soley on the Debian-based distribution statitics,
which have had an active OCaml group for several years now. What do the
registered install stats look like, on say, Arch Linux, or Gentoo?
-- Don
Thomas Schilling
good--not even to the O'Caml community. Haskell can learn from
O'Caml, O'Caml can learn from Haskell. I also think that most users
of either language actually know that.
Donn Cave
| ... Haskell can learn from
| O'Caml, O'Caml can learn from Haskell. I also think that most users
| of either language actually know that.
I'd like to start with a name for it.
- Objective CAML (name of the language)
- ocaml (name of the compiler)
- OCaml (expedient name for language)
I'm always a little piqued by "O'Caml", since I was so fond of O'Haskell.
Now, there was a real Irishman.
Donn