Haskell Packages a bit confusing

haskell-lang / haskell-lang

haskell-lang.org website

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

146 stars 73 forks source link

Haskell Packages a bit confusing #54

Open angerman opened 8 years ago

angerman commented 8 years ago

Maybe this is just me. But I though I'd leave a comment here. Looking at the packages page:

Why is QuickCheck in Core instead of Common/Testing? What is the differentiating factor between both? And why is on in Core and the others are not?
Why not mention doctest, it might be a lesser known option in the haskell community, but for those coming from python, this might seem very familiar (apart from aiding documentation, by embedding examples).
Why is haddock not mentioned? I'm looking at the packages page and wonder: what would I use for building documentation? (Maybe put haddock and doctest into Common/Documentation?)
I'm also a bit confused about criterion in the list of Core instead of say Common/Benchmarking.

angerman commented 8 years ago

On a similar note, why do we list Common/Web/HTTP request, but not Common/Web Frameworks? E.g. Yesod, Snap, Spock? We'd probably want to have a separate web frameworks page with mode details listing full web frameworks, API providers, Tempting Languages, Database layers under Packages/Web Frameworks. This seems to be a hot topic for many. So maybe:

- Packages
  - Web Frameworks
    - Kitchensink: Yesod, Snap
    - Micro: Spock
    - API Centric: Servant
    - Packaging & Deployment: keter-pkg, keter
    - Tempalting: Lucid, Blaze, ...
    - Database layers: persistent, ...

or link to some other page that gives a comprehensive overview?

At least from the packages website, I'm a bit lost about where to go for web frameworks. And the full lts list is rather daunting to look through, if I'd just want to get an answer to: I want to do web dev in haskell, where do I start?

snoyberg commented 8 years ago

The goal is to separate out "basically everyone uses this package for this task" from "there are a few good options". We have the following text on the page:

Core:

Core packages solve common problems and are regularly used in most Haskell programs.

Common:

Packages for common tasks in Haskell programs. Typically more than one option.

If there are recommendations for improving the display, please bring them up!

Regarding web frameworks: no reason not to have them, we started off the page with some basic content to get things rolling. PR certainly welcome for additional categories.

angerman commented 8 years ago

While I do understand the idea and motivation, at least to me it is a bit confusing.

Maybe I'm going at this from the wrong angle, but the natural way (for me at least), was to look at the packages page, and try to answer questions like:

Great, so what do I use for testing? (And I would not have found QuickCheck)
What do I use for benchmarking? (How do I make the mental leap from Benchmarking to Criterion in Core?)
What do I use for documentation? Ohh... looks like Haskell doesn't have anything, or I have to look through the packages list.

Anyway, just wanted to leave a note regarding my impression :-)