Hi Robert,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:31:57 +0100, Robert Will
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Daan Leijen wrote:
It would help me if you could use Haddock to show the interface in html format (documentation is not necessary for now, just the type signatures would be great).
I can only do that later, so if noone wants to jump in, you have to wait some weaks. (Alternatively, use 'grep ::' on the code.)
Ha, never thought about "grep", I'll use that for now.
Could you maybe also tell something about the relation with Edison? This framework seemed to have the same goals as Dessy? Why is it not suitable for your purposes?
Since this comparison is rather spread out in my design documents, here is a summary: [snip]
Thanks for the extensive clarification. I'll look into some more. -- Daan.
First of all, my Collections are a more model-centered while Edison is more algorithm-centered. Okasaki's (good!) choice to have all concrete structures implement all operations of a class, does already make this difference small, but still Edison centers around algorithms (and data structures for use in algorithms), while I center on specifications and data structures for use in day-to-day non-algorithmic programming. A discussion of this is found in the material for (imperative) Dessy: http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~robertw/dessy
Next, I'm using a brand-new algebraic approach with inheritance as refinement to specify the collections and to build up the hierarchy. Thereby many things become simpler (and more different from the List-centered traditional functions). This is explained at length in http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~robertw/dessy/fun/principles.htm
As a consequence of that approach, functions that work on all of the Collections get a clear (and useful) semantics. Programmer's won't need to learn Sequence.fold, Map.fold, Set.fold, and so on -- they just learn to fold (along the right lines). This is what makes the approach challenge the traditional "list" data type and with it large parts of current programming (formal derivation) methodology.
Lastly, the differences in more concrete design decisions, most notably: - I have no unordered structures. - I always view (==) as equality. http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~robertw/dessy/fun/principles.htm#not_here
Please be aware that the goal of DData is just to provide a range of generally useful *concrete* data structures. Currently, JP Bernardy is doing an excellent job of publicly discussing the design and naming schemes to make DData part of the hierarchical libraries.
Yes, of course, DData is a good (even indespensable) thing. However, the long-term goal of the abstract collections is to make all such autonomous libraries obsolete, so there's a natural conflict. We have to manage a smooth transition.
I think some of JP's changes to DData are already very good steps in that transition, notably the view of (==) as equality and the consequent removal of bias. This is another confirmation of my prejudice that people in the FP community are much more ready to accept change for The Right Thing than "imperative folks". That's one of the reasons that Functional Dessy got out so fast, while the imperative version is older and has still not seen the light of the day. (Another reason is of course, that FP is simpler, we have only algebraic Collections, no mutable ones. Imperative Dessy will be the first library that has both...)
Are there any important design issues/restrictions that have to be fulfilled to make DData implement some of the collections?
Simple answer (from my advertising dept.): "To add a new data structure one just needs to implement two (in numbers: <b>2</b>) functions and the structure will inherit (about) 30 functions and hundreds of other polymorhic functions can be used with it."
But of course you don't just want to implement 'split' and 'unsplit' since then most of DData's (optimised) code will not be used. So there are some real compromises to make (hard thinking required). And since Dessy already provides all of DData's algorithms (re-implemented, sharing much code with other algorithms) with a Collections-interface, I can't see a benefit of such a port at time being.
I think at the moment the focus should be on collecting more experience with the Collections, setting up Design by Contract and a (performance and correctness) test framework. After that we can think about implementations. However, we can already see that the "markets" of DData and Dessy are clearly distinct: one optimised for performance (at the expense of code duplication) and the other as a tool-box for algorithms (with code that longs to be ready by others, e.g. students). The synergetic effect will not only be provided by a common interface, but also by exchange of algorithmic ideas and "practical issues of optimisation". Brave new world. :-)
Robert _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries