# The future of Dependent Haskell

**URL:** <https://discourse.haskell.org/t/the-future-of-dependent-haskell/10614>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [October 25, 2024, 7:16am UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/the-future-of-dependent-haskell/10614 "2024-10-25T07:16:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![atravers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@atravers](https://discourse.haskell.org/u/atravers)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 7:12pm UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/the-future-of-dependent-haskell/10614/15 "2024-10-25T19:12:31Z")

</div>

> [@Ambrose](#):
>
> If you have concrete issues with the current changes or planned next steps as they relate to Haskell overall, sure - bring them up.

This gets back to the post which (helped to) start all of this:

> [@Serokell’s Work on GHC: Dependent Types, Part 4](http://discourse.haskell.org/t/serokell-s-work-on-ghc-dependent-types-part-4/10564):
>
> Every time I see a post like this I get really excited, wonder how far along we are, realize I still don’t understand the roadmap to DT, try to read a paper about it (usually Eisenberg’s roadmap) and give up. But I like reading the reactions of people who get it.

So where exactly is the _“grand plan”_ for a _“Dependent Haskell”_ ?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/the-future-of-dependent-haskell/10614)._