ramin.honary | 20 Oct 00:00 2015
ramin.honary | 14 Oct 03:04 2015
M Farkas-Dyck | 13 Oct 08:56 2015

Self-nomination for committee

I hereby nominate myself for the Haskell Prime committee. I have been
using Haskell in my personal work for about 5 years and in industry
for about half a year; my experience in it includes compilers,
algebra, and network servers. I feel like an ignorant child among all
the potent wits in this community, but I have learnt a few rudiments
of category theory. I love this language and I'm very excited to
canonicalize some of the admirable work done since the last version.
Nicolas Wu | 12 Oct 10:31 2015

Self nomination

Dear all,

I'd like to nominate myself for membership on the Haskell Prime committee.

I have used Haskell in industry, for teaching, and for research.

* I have been using Haskell since 2001.
* I am currently a university lecturer teaching Haskell to a cohort of
180 students.
* I actively use Haskell in research, where I work on applications of
category theory in recursion schemes, effect handlers, and domain
specific languages.
* I have worked with Haskell as a consultant, and am a partner in a
company that uses Haskell for web development.

I would love to be involved in the process of deciding which features
should become part of the next standard for Haskell. I believe that
Haskell should be a language that appeals to several audiences:
newcomers to computer science, to those who use the language in
industry, and also to researchers. The needs of these different groups
need not be in conflict, and I would like to see a standard that
embraces them all.

Best wishes,

ramin.honary | 11 Oct 04:02 2015
Richard Eisenberg | 8 Oct 14:24 2015

Self Nomination

I would like to nominate myself for the Haskell Prime committee. I have been studying Haskell intensively
as I'm working toward my PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, though I started programming in Haskell
only in 2011.

* I have designed and implemented several new features in GHC:
  - Closed type families
  - Coercible/roles
  - Several Template Haskell improvements
* I am currently putting the final touches on a large patch to GHC, merging the type and kind language and
allowing reasoning about kind equalities.
* My dissertation is about dependent types in Haskell/GHC.
* I am currently serving as the Template Haskell czar for GHC.
* I am an avid user of lots of GHC extensions, particularly those concerning types. Two of my packages --
singletons and units -- make very heavy use of type system features.

Relevant opinion:
* Despite my pushing the envelope in GHC, my approach toward a language standard is conservative.
Specifically, I would advocate against any of GHC's growing dependent-type features to end up in the
standard: we simply don't have enough experience with these!

My website is at www.cis.upenn.edu/~eir if you wish to learn more about me.

Jurriaan Hage | 7 Oct 21:22 2015

Self nomination

Dear all,

I’d like to nominate myself for the Haskell Prime committee.

I have been programming in Haskell since 2000 or so. Currently I teach a 
course on Functional Programming that discusses many of the essentials 
of Haskell to groups of over 240 or up. 

To be fair:  I do not use Haskell a whole lot myself, but that is also because
my work does not demand much in terms of any kind of programming, and much of
other things. Master and PhD students that I supervise do typically implement their 
ideas in Haskell.

Research-wise I have been working on Haskell too: with Bastiaan Heeren
I have looked at type error diagnosis for Haskell, have contributed to
the Helium compiler for novice programmers, and are currently lead maintainer
of that compiler (available on Hackage). I am also involved in the Utrecht Haskell
Compiler (UHC) with Atze Dijkstra, co-supervising master students working on it. 

I currently supervise a PhD student, Alejandro Serrano Mena, who continues
the work I did with Bastiaan: domain specific type error diagnosis for Haskell 2010,
with an eye to implementing this in UHC or GHC. 

My research interest lies in making Haskell the best vehicle for
embedded domain-specific languages in the world. Incidently, I gave a talk on this
at Curry On! in Prague (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPrM1gONdII). 
Shortly, I want to extend my focus to optimisation, in a way that is transparent to 
the programmer. My paper on heap recycling at PEPM 2008 with Stefan Holdermans 
provides a sample of this.

I am also much interested in the tensions that arise from combining Haskell the 
research-vehicle with Haskell the vehicle for the professional, and Haskell the vehicle for 
teaching how to program in a single specification.

My website is at http://foswiki.cs.uu.nl/foswiki/Hage/WebHome where you can also
find a list of publications, many of which involve Haskell one way or another.

Jurriaan Hage
Utrecht University

Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime <at> haskell.org
Johan Tibell | 6 Oct 10:12 2015

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

(Resending with smaller recipient list to avoid getting stuck in the moderator queue.)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On 2015-10-05 at 21:01:16 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On the libraries I maintain and have a copy of on my computer right now: 329

Although this was already pointed out to you in a response to a Tweet of
yours, I'd like to expand on this here to clarify:

You say that you stick to the 3-major-ghc-release support-window
convention for your libraries. This is good, because then you don't need
any CPP at all! Here's why:


So what do I have to write today to have my Monad instances be:

 * Warning free - Warnings are useful. Turning them off or having spurious warnings both contribute to bugs.
 * Use imports that either are qualified or have explicit import lists - Unqualified imports makes code more likely to break when dependencies add exports.
 * Don't use CPP.

Neither AMP or MRP includes a recipe for this in their proposal. AMP got one post-facto on the Wiki. It turns out that the workaround there didn't work (we tried it in Cabal and it conflicted with one of the above requirements.)

PS: I'm a bit disappointed you seem to dismiss this proposal right away
    categorically without giving us a chance to address your
    concerns. The proposal is not a rigid all-or-nothing thing that
    can't be tweaked and revised.  That's why we're having these
    proposal-discussions in the first place (rather than doing blind
    +1/-1 polls), so we can hear everyone out and try to maximise the
    agreement (even if we will never reach 100% consensus on any

    So please, keep on discussing!

The problem by discussions is that they are done between two groups with quite a difference in experience. On one hand you have people like Bryan, who have considerable contributions to the Haskell ecosystem and much experience in large scale software development (e.g. from Facebook). On the other hand you have people who don't. That's okay. We've all been at the latter group at some point of our career.

What's frustrating is that people don't take a step bad and realize that they might be in the latter group and should perhaps listen to those in the former. This doesn't happen, instead we get lots of "C++ and Java so bad and we don't want to be like them." Haskell is not at risk of becoming C++ or Java (which are a large improvement compared to the languages came before them). We're at risk of missing our window of opportunity. I think that would be a shame, as I think Haskell is a step forward compared to those languages and I would like to see more software that used be written in Haskell.

We've been through this many times before on the libraries list. I'm not going to win an argument on this mailing list. Between maintaining libraries you all use and managing a largish team at Google, I don't have much time for a discussion which approaches a hundred emails and is won by virtue of having lots of time to write emails.

-- Johan

Haskell-prime mailing list
Lennart Augustsson | 5 Oct 18:31 2015


I would like to nominate myself to the Haskell Prime committee.

About me:

* I wrote the first publicly available Haskell compiler, hbc, which was available August 1990.
* Subsequently I've written three more Haskell(-ish) compilers.
* I've been on the Haskell Committee before.
* I like experimentation with language features, but I'm very conservative about using them in production code.

-- Lennart Augustsson
Haskell-prime mailing list


Hello everyone,

I would also like to nominate myself for the Haskell committee reboot.

I'm currently finishing my PhD at the University of York, just submitted last week and going to defend in the next few months. I will be starting at Galois later this month but cannot claim to speak for the company.

A small group of us at York have considered writing a (new) York Haskell Compiler. One of the issues faced when considering such a project is that many people expect more than what Haskell98 or Haskell2010 offer, but many of those things are underspecified. The fallback of 'just do what GHC does' defeats the purpose in our eyes. Having a modern standard would help pin down the common extensions to Haskell2010 that people rely on while leaving room for experimentation on the 'how'. 

While most of my work has been on the implementation side of things, I am comfortable with the theoretical aspect of language design. Having just finished my thesis, I'm keen to start on another problem. Having a new, up-to-date, standard is something I feel is important to the wider Haskell community and I would love the opportunity to be involved.

Best wishes,

José Manuel

Haskell-prime mailing list
Andres Löh | 1 Oct 14:36 2015



I'd like to nominate myself for membership in the new Haskell Prime committee.

About me:

* I've been a Haskell user since 1997.
* Back then, to learn Haskell, I read the entire Haskell 1.4 language report.
* I have experience in programming languages theory and language
design, with most of my research focusing on datatype-generic
programming in Haskell (e.g. the stuff that is currently available as
DeriveGeneric etc in GHC).
* I have extensive experience in teaching Haskell, both in an academic
and a commercial context.
* I was a member of the Haskell 2010 committee.

I'd like to contribute to the new standardization effort, and am very
grateful to hvr for taking the lead. I believe that the current system
of accumulating more and more language extensions is only sustainable
in the long term if we shift the baseline from time to time. Even more
than just making a decision on what a new "Haskell" could and should
look like, I think that a likely benefit of the standardization
process will be that we improve the documentation of extensions,
reveal dark corners of underspecficiation and strange interactions,
and perhaps can help to clean up certain things here and there.