On Saturday 03 July 2010 12:12:56, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 3 Jul 2010, at 11:04, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 7/3/10 05:57 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Agreed. So let me rephrase: Why should _every_ Haskell library involve C? ;-)
Who says they do, or should?
Dons rather implied it... The suggestion is that someone who hasn't used hsc2hs is an inexperienced Haskeller... I'd bet though that there are many *extremely* experienced haskellers who have never once in their life written a C binding.
Andrew Coppin:
Who says they do, or should?
Don, a few emails ago.
I think you missed a small detail there.
ivan.miljenovic:
Hmm, interesting. Applicative and Traversable are two classes I've never used and don't really understand the purpose of. I have no idea what hsc2hs is. I keep hearing finger trees mentioned, but only in connection to papers that I can't access. So I guess that means that I don't count as a "knowledgable" Haskell programmer. :-(
RWH is free and online, and covers many useful things. There's no excuse :-)
Knowing about something /= knowing how to use it. I own and have read RWH, but I've never had to use hsc2hs, or Applicative, etc.
Writing libraries that bind to C is a great way to have to use a lot of hsc2hs (or c2hs), so clearly you need to contribute more libraries :-)
dons was replying to *Ivan Miljenovic* here (with a smiley to remove all doubt), he was teasing [is that the entirely correct word?] Ivan a bit.
But in this case, the OP didn't even know *about* the something.
That, however, is indeed an indicator (not infallible of course). After a few years of Haskell coding, it's very unlikely that you've never heard of those tools. Cheers, Daniel