Summary: I've just released a new version of Shake, with a --demo feature and an underlying continuation monad. I want to release v1.0 in the near future.
I've just released a new version of the Shake build system, version 0.13.3. While the version number is only 0.0.1 higher, the changelog lists a large number of improvements. In particular, two changes are:
- The Action monad is now based on continuations, which allows Shake to suspend threads without requiring a GHC RTS thread. The result is significantly less memory used on thread stacks. I still find it quite amazing that Haskell has such powerful and robust abstraction mechanisms that a huge change doesn't even break the API.
- The shake binary now features a --demo mode, invoked by running shake --demo. This mode generates a Shake project, compiles it, and shows off some of the features of Shake. You can the output of --demo here.
With the two features above, I'm now looking towards Shake version 1.0. I'm not looking to make any significant backwards-incompatible change, or necessarily any code/API changes at all. However, if you have anything you think should be addressed before reaching such a milestone, please comment on the issue tracker or email the mailing list.
The one thing I still want to finish before releasing version 1.0 is to have a proper website for Shake. I've registered shakebuild.com which will host the content, and have set up GitHub pages to serve it up. I have some rough content in the docs directory and a prototype generator in the website directory - as an example it currently generates something a bit like this for the user manual, but with a table of contents when run through the latest generator. I'd appreciate any help with the content, the generator, or the styling - just email the mailing list.
Did you know that all ACM-sponsored conferences have an anti-harassment policy? I didn’t, until I chaired the Haskell Symposium last year. The concise policy says, among other things, that people shouldn’t use my family constitution to interfere with my professional participation. And the policy has teeth. That’s great.
My not knowing the policy and not seeing it publicized didn’t make me go out of my way to harass anyone. But it did make me less sure and less comfortable that I belonged at ICFP. Briefly, it’s because I didn’t know if it would be common ground at the conference that my actual self was fully human. That’s not something I can take for granted in general society. Also, it’s because I didn’t know whether my fellow conference attendees were aware of the policy. We could all use a reminder, and a public signal that we mean it.
For these reasons, I’m very happy that ICFP will start to publicize ACM’s existing anti-harassment policy and make sure everyone registered knows it. All ACM conferences should do it. That’s why Tim Chevalier, Clement Delafargue, Adam Foltzer, Eric Merritt, and I are doing two things. We ask you to join us:
- Donate to the Ada Initiative. Our goal is for the functional programming community to raise $8192 by the end of Friday (Sept 19) UTC. To count toward this goal, please use this link: http://supportada.org/?campaign=lambda
- Call on the ACM and tell your friends. For example, I tweeted
I donate to @AdaInitiative because I want @TheOfficialACM events to announce their anti-harassment policy http://supportada.org/?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada
Thanks for improving our professional homes!
(UPDATE: Wow! We reached our initial goal $4096 in just 5 hours! We increased the goal to $8192, thanks to your generosity. And if we raise $16,384, we will sing “There’s no type class like Show type class” and put a recording on the Internet.)
I liked the paper in the title a lot, and would like to follow up and read something that built on top of those ideas. What would you suggest? Cheerssubmitted by liberalogica
[link] [4 comments]
Some of you might remember my first post regarding Netwire on the subject. I finished writing my second blog post on the subject. This time about my experiences writing Pong using Netwire.
Any sort of constructive comments / suggestions / criticisms are more than welcome!submitted by crockeo
[link] [8 comments]
So far I’ve ignored the back and forth on the Scottish referendum on secession from the United Kingdom, but this weekend I decided that it was past time for me to sort it out. For those of you who don’t know me, I’ll mention that I lived for 3.5 years in Scotland quite some time ago, so I am not completely ignorant of the cultural and political issues that underly the debate. As a rule my political views are very much in line with those of the average Scot, solidly Labour Party back in the day when people like Derek Hatton and Ken Livingston and Roy Hattersley and Tony Benn defined what that meant. Despite Tony Blair’s slimy “third way” nonsense, and his toadying up to Dick “Dick” Cheney’s sock puppet to help lie us into the Iraq war, Scotland in national politics remains solidly Labour; practically every Scottish seat is a Labour seat.
Although I used to be a so up on British politics that I could read and enjoy Private Eye, it’s been a long while since I’ve paid more than scant attention to what’s been going on there, apart from noting that The Scotsman was one of the few sources of truth about the Iraq War back when it really mattered. The Scots have spines.
I’m no historian, but I do have basic understanding of Scottish history, particularly as regards the English, and am very familiar with the Scottish concept of valor in glorious defeat. I understand full well that practically every Scotsman harbors some resentment towards the English for centuries of injustices, including the highland clearances, and, more recently, the appropriation of the oil in Scottish territory for the scant benefit of the Scots themselves. And I am well aware of the bravery and sacrifice that so many Scots made fighting against the Axis during World War II.
My home institution, Carnegie Mellon University, was founded by a Scotsman from Kirkaldy, just across the spectacular Forth Bridge from Edinburgh. Carnegie was born into penury and died as the wealthiest man on earth, far wealthier relative to GDP than Gates by a wide margin. Carnegie was extraordinary, but the Scots in general punch far above their weight class in all things, especially industrious self-reliance.
In short, I love Scotland, and consider it to be a second home. (OK, the weather is appalling, but we’ll set that aside for the time being.)
Emotionally, I am deeply sympathetic to the Scottish independence movement. I know full well how poorly the U.K. treats Scotland and its interests. Politics in the UK revolves around the “home counties” in the south of England; the terminology tells you all you need to know. One time while watching the weather report on the BBC, the national broadcasting network, the announcer said that there was some horrendous weather coming our way, but that “it’ll mostly be up in Scotland, though”. Though. Though.
But I urge all my Scottish friends to vote NO on the independence proposal. It makes no sense whatsoever in its present form, and represents to me a huge scam being perpetrated by the SNP to seize power and impose policies that nearly every Scot, judging from their voting record over decades and decades, would oppose. The whole movement seems driven by the powerful urge to finally stick it to the English and get their country back, and Salmond is exploiting that to the hilt. Back when I lived in Scotland I looked into the SNP, because even then I had separatist sympathies, but when I did, it was obvious why they had so few backers. They’re just Tories without the class structure, more akin to our Tea Party lunatics than to the British Conservatives, and steadfastly opposed to policies, such as well-funded public education, that nearly all Scots support, and determined to follow the post-cold war Slovakian model of slashing taxes on the wealthy in the hope of attracting business to the country. Having not followed Scottish politics for so long, it is astonishing to me that the SNP has managed to gain a majority in the Scottish Parliament, while the voting pattern at the national level has not changed at all. How did this happen? From my position of ignorance of the last decade or so of politics in Scotland, it looks as though Salmond is a slick operator who has pulled off a colossal con by exploiting the nationalist tendencies that lie within every Scot.
But never mind Salmond, the main reason that Scots must vote NO on the referendum is that it proposes to keep the English pound as Scotland’s national currency! This is such a preposterous idea that I can only suspect dishonesty and deceit, because no sane political leader of honest intent could ever voluntarily place his or her country’s economic future in the hands of another. The Bank of England will, particularly after separation, have no interest whatsoever in the economic conditions in Scotland when determining its policies on the pound. And the Bank of Scotland will have no ability to control its own currency, the prime means of maintaining economic balance between labor and capital. The Scots will, in effect, be putting themselves on a gold standard, the stupidest possible monetary system, so that, in a crisis, they will have to buy or borrow pounds, at interest, in emergency conditions, to deal with, say, the failure of the Royal Bank of Scotland (but don’t worry, that sort of thing can never happen again). And the Bank of Scotland will have no means of stimulating the economy in a demand slump other than borrowing pounds from somewhere outside the country, rendering themselves in debt beyond their means. And this will become an excuse for dismantling the social system that has been so important to elevating the Scots from poverty to a decent standard of living within one or two generations. Just look at the poor PIGS in the Euro-zone being pushed around by Germany, especially, to satisfy the conveniences of the German bankers, and to hell with the living, breathing souls in Greece or Spain or Ireland or Portugal, to name the canonical victims.
A country that does not control its own currency is not independent and cannot be independent. It’s an illusion. Just what are Salmond’s true intentions are not entirely clear to me, but on the basis of his monetary policies alone, I implore my Scottish friends to suppress the natural wish to make a statement of pride, and instead do the sensible thing. The proposal to be voted on this week is not a spittle on the Heart of Midlothian, it is an irrevocable decision to place Scotland in an even worse position with respect to England than it already is in.
Listen to reason. Vote NO on independence.
Filed under: Research Tagged: Scottish referendum
I have a package of database functionality called library which was developed internally at corporation. The current package name is corporation-library and the module hierarchy starts at Corporation.Library.
At some point this will be released on Hackage, and I am wondering what to do about naming. Personally I like the namespacing effect and the credit-giving effect of keeping corporation in the name of the package and modules, but I realise this may seem a bit odd to the community.
The other alternative is
- rename the package to just library (this doesn't clash this any existing Haskell package or indeed any package from any programming language)
- rename the module hierarchy to Library or Database.Library
Thoughts?submitted by tomejaguar
[link] [13 comments]
Here's a new thing: Blog posts! That's right. A while back, we started a new set of emails on the developers list containing weekly updates, from GHC HQ. But we eventually decided it should be more broad and encompass the work GHC sees as a project - including all the things our contributors do.
So now it's the weekly GHC news - and we (or, well, I) have decided to blogify the weekly emails!
So without further adieu, here's the current recap. The original mailing list copy is available here.
- As Gabor mentioned on the list earlier today, I (Austin) accidentally broke the Windows build. Sorry. :( We really need to get Phab building Windows too ASAP... I'm working on a fix this morning.
- I sent out the HCAR draft this morning. Please edit it! I think we have a few weeks of lead time however, so we're not in a rush like last time. But I will send reminders. :)
- The server migration for ghc.haskell.org seems to have gone pretty smoothly in the past week. It's had plenty of traffic so far. The full migration is still ongoing and I want to complete it this week.
- I've finished reorganizing some of the Git and Repository pages after some discussion. We now have the Repositories page, linked to on the left side, which details some notes on the repositories we use, and links to other various pages. I'm thinking of replacing this side-bar "root" with a link to the main Git page, perhaps.
- Miscellaneous: ghc.haskell.org and phabricator.haskell.org now sets the Strict-Transport-Security header. This just means you always use SSL now when you visit those pages (so you can't be connection-hijacked via a 503 redirect).
- I'm merging some patches at the moment, although the windows fix is currently what I'll push first: Phab:D205, Phab:D204, Phab:D203, Phab:D199, Phab:D194, Phab:D179, Phab:D174. Do let me know if there's anything you want me to look at.
- GHC works on Wine apparently for all you Linux users - thanks Mikolaj!
- Jan had some questions about infrastructure which I just followed up on this morning. In particular: does anyone feel strongly about his first question?
- Herbert committed the first part of the Traversable/Foldable changes, by moving the typeclasses to Prelude. This is part of an ongoing series of patches. Things like adding Bifunctor will finally come after this.
Also, added bonus: we'll start including some of the tickets we closed this week.
Please let me know if you have any questions.