Rename Haskell Platform Minimal

[acfoltzer]

A common theme has emerged in recent threads about how the Haskell Platform is presented on the Haskell.org downloads page. It tends to go something like:

I tried using Haskell Platform a couple years ago, and it was terrible! I couldn't install the libraries I wanted to use. Why on earth does Haskell.org continue to recommend this?

For folks who are Fully Immersed in the goings-on of HP and its recent evolution, this is frustrating because we know the criticism is out of date. However, can we really fault people for being confused? To summarize:

• What we now call "Haskell Platform Full" (HPF) used to just be called "Haskell Platform"
• HPF/legacy HP include packages beyond the GHC-bundled packages, which introduces potentially problematic constraints when solving for new libraries
• "Haskell Platform Minimal" (HPM) includes the same executables as HPF, but in terms of goals is more like an evolution of the now-defunct minimal installers
• People burned by solver errors with legacy HP see the words "Haskell Platform" and assume HPM is going to give them the same problems

Let's bikeshed up a different name for HPM, so that the bad experiences people once had with legacy HP will stop hampering adoption of a product that is not at all subject to those same issues. To kick it off, a couple of ideas from recent discussions:

• Core Haskell
• Haskell Kit

[jfdm]

For those new to the discussion about HPM and HPF (i.e. only are aware of Legacy Haskell Platform) and have wandered here from random social media links: Are there any links to further information that can be added here so that we can add responsibly to the bike shedding?

[dagit]

My understanding is that minimal provides the following (it's at least true on windows):

• ghc
  • haddock
  • hsc2hs
  • hp2ps
  • hpc
• alex
• happy
• cabal-install
• stack

Additionally, it does not provide any libraries outside of those that ship with ghc.

If I got that right, then the point of minimal is to provide you with the most common tools (but not the most common libraries). By contrast, the Full install is everything above plus a recommended set of libraries.

Edit: Updated the list of installed programs.

[acfoltzer]

Indeed, though it's worth noting that it transitively includes the other tools that come bundled with GHC such as haddock, hsc2hs, hp2ps, and hpc.

Historically, the extra libraries included with legacy HP (and now HP Full) have been the source of the dependency resolution headaches that gave HP a bad name.

[jfdm]

That clears it up nicely thanks.

I think something like the suggested Haskell Core, or Haskell Tools or Haskell Base would be more suitable. I think something that projects the idea of a starting point for using Haskell is better than 'kit'. To me kit means tool kit which implies a kitchen sink.

[gbaz]

The Full one should keep the platform branding I think. But "minimal" can lead someone to think "not as good, I should always get Full" and that's not really the intent (we just adopted the terminology from the minimal installers as it was recognized). So I agree some rebranding here could help. I lean towards "Core Haskell" -- the problem with Base is it might overlap with the name of the base library, leading to confusion. I'd be happy for more names to be thrown against the wall too.

[erantapaa]

"Haskell Platform Lite"?
On Aug 29, 2016 3:18 PM, "gbaz" notifications@github.com wrote:

The Full one should keep the platform branding I think. But "minimal" can
lead someone to think "not as good, I should always get Full" and that's
not really the intent (we just adopted the terminology from the minimal
installers as it was recognized). So I agree some rebranding here could
help. I lean towards "Core Haskell" -- the problem with Base is it might
overlap with the name of the base library, leading to confusion. I'd be
happy for more names to be thrown against the wall too.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#250 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACxcPJonJ4m8u6iswXqn2UM7V_AVLK0ks5qkz6ogaJpZM4JvtJC
.

[dagit]

Taking inspiration from Douglas Crockford, how about "Haskell Platform: The Good Parts" :)

[23Skidoo]

Taking inspiration from Douglas Crockford, how about "Haskell Platform: The Good Parts" :)

It's a bit too harsh, most libraries included in the full Platform (e.g. text and vector) are certainly "the good parts".

[acfoltzer]

I would rather support choices that doesn't include the word "platform" at all; I don't think the "Minimal" part is the problem with the existing name.

[sopvop]

haskell toolchain - like GNU toolchain but for haskell.

[hsenag]

What will happen once 'cabal new-build' is the default in the cabal-install shipped with the platform? Will there then be any danger from having the pre-installed libraries again?

[asandroq]

+1 for the already suggested Haskell Base and Haskell Kit.

Core Haskell may be confused with the GHC core language.

[gbaz]

Absolutely once we move to new-build then shipping a new-package-db that's bigger or smaller will have no downsides outside of install size. We still may want a minimal then regardless though?

[gbaz]

I'm warming towards Haskell Kit as a name. It's less overloaded and feels both comprehensive and lightweight.

[hsenag]

Personally I wouldn't have thought there's any point in making a distinction and adding to user confusion once we have new-build, but either way I'd suggest being planning the name change now with that later switch in mind.