…but will they still be as joyful when multithreaded GHC is the default, certain unsafe features/extensions are behaving badly as a result, and they’re hunting for those new bugs?
A more-measured process seems the better option here:
-
Implement all the approved language and implementation proposals which can interact badly with unsafe features or extensions;
-
Using the experience gained in step 1 and elsewhere, attempt to improve Safe Haskell;
-
If Safe Haskell cannot be salvaged, use the experience from both steps 1 and 2 to devise a satisfactory replacement for the vast majority of Haskell users.
-
If that replacement cannot be found (e.g. in a reasonable time period) only then should Safe Haskell be deprecated, leaving us with the joys of hunting for obscure bugs, dealing with fragile tests, etc - fun and games for everyone!
If only someone could figure out a way to reduce (or even vanquish!) the need for all that “unsafeness” - it would reduce (or vanquish) the need for such a process to begin with.