People want to use stack because it solves real problems for them. I don't see why this is incomprehensible. There are many tools that I don't use personally, while understanding why others do like then.
-
-
Replying to @mattoflambda @puffnfresh and
I want to fiddle with build tools for approximately 0 time ideally and I'm happy to accept compromises on other fronts for that. Stack is great for this. If I had other priorities I'd use other tools.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mattoflambda @shajra and
exactly but Stack is awful at this, so I move on. I also don't tell newbies to use PHP. Wanna try to talk me into that to??? I don't get it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @puffnfresh @shajra and
I have had a dramatically different experience than you to come to such differing conclusions. I don't know why, but I want you to understand that there are a lot of people with experiences similar to mine,and writing all of those people off is bizarre.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mattoflambda @puffnfresh and
I just read this whole thread.. im desperate to be convinced I don't need stack like I don't need spacemacs to use emacs, but after reading all this I still have no idea of any argument against it except feelsies. Some reason and rationale would solve these tensions I am sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @FelixSchlitter @mattoflambda and
yeah, it's just feelsies, k
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @puffnfresh @FelixSchlitter and
group a: stack never works for anyone group b: it actually works pretty great for us (this is the extent of the "debate")
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @mattoflambda @puffnfresh and
I think I got more out of it than that. For education, the argument is the pedagogical simplicity of plain GHC -- not Stack, not even Cabal. For production, the argument is new-build Cabal, and for many non-Stackers also Nix to nail FFI with some principled architecture.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shajra @mattoflambda and
You also get to see some (not all) of the deflective tactics that are deployed when pseudo-debate occurs. Especially around stack. I find it interesting, even if dishonest and non-progressive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dibblego @mattoflambda and
To be fair, many people are not saying "works on my machine" (though many are). They are asking, "please give us more details so we can fix/improve Stack." At best, the response seems to be, "I'm not actually interested in that, because Stack is not needed, hence a bad idea."
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
You are always too generous :) No, it was recurrent deflection, not argument, or aspirations for improvement.
-
-
Replying to @dibblego @mattoflambda and
My generosity is my gift to everyone. It's okay if you return to sender.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shajra @mattoflambda and
Yes, but it means arguments cannot occur. Actual arguments over stack do, and have, occurred. Honest critical discussions. How do you think we arrived this position? Making up bullshit like the opponent? That's just parody.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.