[Nix-dev] Use Haskell for Shell Scripting
raahul.kumar at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 01:52:39 CET 2015
At this current point in time, GHC is packaged in a poor manner, with GHC
being unbelievably huge. Dynamic linking is the answer, which isn't done by
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Joe Hillenbrand <joehillen at gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Domen Kožar <domen at dev.si> wrote:
>> If you want to impose on people to learn Haskell and Nix to contribute,
>> you're going to end up in a lonely island. Remember, Nix tries to be
>> approachable to everyone and that's why it's minimal and simple.
> I'll never buy the circular argument that "Haskell's not popular because
> Haskell's not popular." I think people would be encouraged to learn Haskell
> if Nix was using it to great success. From what I've seen, a huge chunk of
> the existing Nix community are Haskellers because they understand the
> benefits of purity. I think if there is a clear benefit to a superior tool,
> it should be used, though I'm not entirely convinced there are a huge
> benefit to using Turtle.
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Oliver Charles <ollie at ocharles.org.uk>
>> Not sure if you're serious...
> I'm not sure if I am either. I'm just curious what people think about the
> I'd imagine that the startup overhead is now higher than bash, and the
>> size of closures goes up a lot (you have to pull in the many hundreds of MB
>> that GHC needs).
> Given those concerns another option could be shell-monad, which
> outputs shell script, so you get some of the safety benefits of Haskell
> with none of the overhead. Maybe it would be a good middle ground.
>  http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/shell_monad_day_3/
>  http://hackage.haskell.org/package/shell-monad
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nix-dev