Hacker News Reader

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if they remain Haskell 2010 compliant and use pragmas for their own extensions. I certainly would like to see features like extensible records and variants; and this is unlikely to happen anytime soon in GHC, as the focus seems to be dependent types.

View on HN

This is exactly the direction we're going. I'm a big fan of extensible records/variants. We'll be supporting the GHC 8 extensions that are orthogonal to the type system refactoring like Strict, StrictData, etc. pretty much everything other than TypeInType.

Exciting stuff! The JVM really needs a modern statically typed functional language.

I'd say the focus (as always) is on making GHC a better compiler. Join points, levity polymorphism and the new typeable improvements are all in that category. And there's an amazing amount of stuff under the hood in 8.2. Dependent types? 8.6, 8.4 if they're lucky.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com