Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Go Haskell! -> array libraries

But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well designed libraries. I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you also need to step back and abstract.

-- Lennart

Especially so if the free marketeers claim there is something fundamentally wrong with the standard libraries and language, as in the case of arrays. When someone did that nice little survey of the last bunch of array libraries (Bulat, I think? now in the wiki book), I was hoping there would be a grand unification soon. Instead, it seems that those who have worked most with Haskell arrays recently have simply abandoned all of the standard array libraries. Okay, why not, if there are good reasons. But can't you document those reasons, for each of your alternative proposals, so that people have some basis on which to choose (other than who has the loudest market voice;-)? And would it be difficult for you all to agree on a standard API, to make switching between the alternatives easy (if it is indeed impossible to unify their advantages in a single library, the reasons for which should also be documented somewhere)? And what is wrong about Simon's suggestion, to use the standard array lib APIs on top of your implementations? Not that I see Haskell' coming soon, but I'd certainly not want it to continue standardising a kind of array that appears to have no backing among the Haskell array user/library author community. Nor would I like something as central as arrays to remain outside the standard, where it won't remain stable enough for Haskell programmers to rely on in the long run. bazaar, yes; mayhem, no. Claus

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Don Stewart wrote:

...

andrewcoppin:

...

What *I* propose is that somebody [you see what I did there?] should sit down, take stock of all the multitudes of array libraries, what features they have, what obvious features they're missing, and think up a good API from scratch. Once we figure out what the best way to arrange all this stuff is, *then* we attack the problem of implementing it for real.

It seems lots of people have written really useful code, but we need to take a step back and look at the big picture here before writing any more of it.

No.

My view would be to let the free market of developers decide what is best. No bottlenecks -- there's too many Haskell libraries already (~1000 now).

And this approach has yielded more code than ever before, more libraries than ever before, and library authors are competing.

So let the market decide. We're a bazaar, not a cathedral.

-- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe