Leaving aside GHCJS (which IMO is an entirely orthogonal issue),
Yes I agree GHCJS is it’s own other issue.
Haskell ecosystem is largely stuck with GHC 8.10, because there is no Stackage LTS for GHC 9.0. And there is no LTS, because GHC 9.0.1 was hardly usable. With a recent release of 9.0.2 and Stackage preparing for LTS 19, this difficulty is likely to be resolved pretty soon.
Sure, but I want base work to never be blocked not matter what GHC is up to, and GHC work to never be blocked no matter what base is up to.
I strongly suspect that funnelling community efforts into faster migration of packages to newer GHCs has better ROI than embarking on decoupling base from GHC.
Well, because of things like GHCJS, that wouldn’t really help me. That GHCJS is orthogonal is sort of my point here — it’s hard to forsee all the reasons one might be stuck on and old GHC or anything (which just delays the key issue).
I think we are just more robust if we make it so
base is never blocked on GHC. Fixing the reasons why GHC would block in the first place is great, don’t get me wrong! But it leaves the underlying fragility where many things can be block many other things in place.
Your “key issue” is to me merely the key issue this time around
I entirely agree this decoupling base from GHC is a laudable enterprise
my doubts are just about potential ROI in comparison to other avenues we can choose to pursue (taking into account limited resources of community / HF / GHC developers).
The initial split in two pieces I don’t think think will be so costly, and the ROI is not what itself is, but that it allows a bunch of stuff today which bogs each other down to proceed in parallel with minimal synchronization. Without this,
base is going to limp along like every other language’s stagnated standard library, because it is just too annoying to work on.
Hopefully @hecate and I will find the time to do it, and so some of the discussion here will be a moot point, but we both have many other things in progress so I am not sure when that would be. So I do think it is good to keep on discussing this stuff if only to hone the reasoning both ways.
And if we can make GHC to evolve at a pace of a mature compiler and not an academic PoC, it would bring even higher ROI overall.
Granted, I am veering into more subjective stuff here, but ultimately I do want them both to able to evolve at a fast rate,
base is quite bad, and the current hodge-podge of extensions we commonly use is also bad. So any plan that relies on GHC just slowing down (because we simply don’t have the reasources yet to move fast and understand how bad the each bit of breakage is) gets me nervous.