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