On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:05:36AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote: > > Would you care to explain why you have this aversion to libs that aren't > > bundled with ghc? > > They are less stable and have less quality control. It is also an > additional burden for a user to install the library to get the program > working.
This is basically the issue. I've never used a Data.Map in any "real" code (that was written by me... Data.Map is used in xmonad, upon which I hack, but don't feel motivated to propose alternative requirements for installation), only in toy codes. And for that purpose, I didn't really want to go to the trouble of seeking out and researching various alternatives. For a trivial "count the frequency of characters in a text file" toy code, it hardly seems like a reasonable expectation that a beautiful implementation should require the installation of extra libraries. > cabal-install should fix the second. Some useful community feedback on > hackage could fix the first. By removing most bundled libraries from > GHC, we can get to the point where people _have_ to use non bundled > libraries, then everyone will be on a more equal footing. cabal-install may help, but what I'd really want is packaging in debian. That's my (biased, because I used debian) standard of a "maintained, useful library." It's obviously a biased standard, but it isn't too hard for a package to get into debian, and if it *does* get into debian, it suggests someone cares about it. I don't like requiring obscure packages that perhaps have no code review, and perhaps have no users other than the author. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe