From asandroq at gmail.com  Tue Jul  6 09:40:43 2010
From: asandroq at gmail.com (Alex Queiroz)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:40:43 -0300
Subject: [Scheme-reports] Haskell's incremental approach
Message-ID: <AANLkTikr9dV26DL_7cSYoNAKrEvCXHDXkLZwGuKtT7rj@mail.gmail.com>

Hallo,

     Haskell 2010 is out. Although not directly related to Scheme, I
found something interesting while reading the new report[1]:

"After several years exploring the design space, it was decided that a
single monolithic revision of the language was too large a task, and
the best way to make progress was to evolve the language in small
incremental steps, each revision integrating only a small number of
well-understood extensions and changes. Haskell 2010 is the first
revision to be created in this way, and new revisions are expected
once per year."

     We took a different approach to manage complexity: Divided the
language into two profiles. I wonder if this incremental approach
would keep the community in constant discussion and would evolve our
language faster.

[1] - http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellli2.html#x3-5000

Cheers,
-- 
-alex
http://www.artisancoder.com/


From bh at cs.berkeley.edu  Tue Jul  6 10:39:51 2010
From: bh at cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey)
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:39:51 -0700
Subject: [Scheme-reports] Haskell's incremental approach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikr9dV26DL_7cSYoNAKrEvCXHDXkLZwGuKtT7rj@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikr9dV26DL_7cSYoNAKrEvCXHDXkLZwGuKtT7rj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201007061439.o66Edpju015295@abbenay.cs.berkeley.edu>

> would evolve our language faster.

Not to pick a fight or anything, but if you go into a design process with
words like "faster" in your mind, you're going to end up with something
like R6RS.  The Haskell people you quote were very explicit that the goal
of their design process was to evolve /slowly/, which is the correct goal.


From asandroq at gmail.com  Tue Jul  6 10:43:05 2010
From: asandroq at gmail.com (Alex Queiroz)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:43:05 -0300
Subject: [Scheme-reports] Haskell's incremental approach
In-Reply-To: <201007061439.o66Edpju015295@abbenay.cs.berkeley.edu>
References: <AANLkTikr9dV26DL_7cSYoNAKrEvCXHDXkLZwGuKtT7rj@mail.gmail.com>
	<201007061439.o66Edpju015295@abbenay.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-f3spupC8usB6EhDZmVKF4CUFIyJ-gE8Q1h6l@mail.gmail.com>

Hallo,

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Brian Harvey <bh at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> would evolve our language faster.
>
> Not to pick a fight or anything, but if you go into a design process with
> words like "faster" in your mind, you're going to end up with something
> like R6RS. ?The Haskell people you quote were very explicit that the goal
> of their design process was to evolve /slowly/, which is the correct goal.
>

     They are evolving slowly, we have stopped.

-- 
-alex
http://www.artisancoder.com/