> From: Stephen Tetley <stephen.tetley@gmail.com>
>
> Hello all
>
> While new libraries develop at pace, their documentation rarely does;
> so I'd have to disagree with John's claim that re-naming libraries
> makes development by new users harder. I'd argue that having tutorials
> not work for later revisions is more confusing than having various
> packages doing the same thing. I'd also contend that beginners are
> better off lagging behind the cutting edge and using Parsec 2,
> QuickCheck 1, Haskore-vintage, as the earlier version all have
> comprehensive documentation - Parsec 2 and Haskore have extensive
> manual/tutorials, QuickCheck 1 was small enough that the original
> QuickCheck paper covered its use.

Lagging behind the cutting edge is one thing, but learning
possibly-deprecated or soon-to-be-obsolete interfaces is another.  I
would contend that in each case the intention is for the earlier
version to be superseded because of significant (hopefully
user-driven) benefits provided by the new design.  Now beginners are
in the very frustrating situation of having invested time with a
codebase that they learn is obsolete.  Depending on the significance
of the changes, some amount of that knowledge can be carried forward,
but it's a disheartening position to be in and I would expect a few
could give up entirely at that point.  I think that's worse than
floundering around with no documentation at all.

Of course a better solution is for maintainers to update their manuals!