> it can involve several qualified imports and time researching ByteStrings/Lazy ByteStrings/ByteString.Char8
Evan is right, the right way is to use the text package (plus, it is part of the platform and is simple to use), or at least the utf8-string package (encode/decode functions). I personnaly banned ByteString.Char8, as it is incompatible with UTF8 (the "pack" method truncates Chars). 2011/5/20 Eric Rasmussen <[email protected]> > I only recently started learning Haskell and have had a difficult time > convincing other Python hackers to come on board. I see two things that > might help: > > 1) A resource to make informed decisions about different libraries. > Something that includes specific criteria like how long a library has been > out, how often it's maintained, how many people use it, etc. Ideally you'd > be able to see a quick table comparison of features across libraries that > perform similar tasks (roughly translated to something like: "this xml > library is well established, has great documentation, and works for most > parsing tasks, while this other one is much faster but not widely used > yet"). > > 2) Languages like Python make it easy to write fast performing code in a > few lines that will read/write files, split strings, and build lists or > dictionaries/associative arrays. There are very clever ways of doing all > these things Haskell, but it can involve several qualified imports and time > researching ByteStrings/Lazy ByteStrings/ByteString.Char8. It would be nice > to have a single module that exports some common text operations via > ByteStrings without requiring a lot of upfront research time learning to > work with ByteStrings, and possibly a limited export of Data.Map features as > well. > > The second one would hold little interest for advanced developers of > course, but when someone is faced with a difficult learning task, if you > give them a strong starting point that produces results it can help motivate > them to keep learning. Is anyone working on either of these things or > interested in working on them? I'm not quite ready to produce high quality > Haskell code yet, but I'd like to contribute if I can. > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM, David Leimbach <[email protected]> wrote: > >> See the Haskell Platform. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 19, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Andrew Coppin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On 19/05/2011 09:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Andrew, you are being non constructive. >> > >> > It seems I'm being misunderstood. >> > >> > Some people seem to hold the opinion that more libraries = better. I'm >> trying to voice the opinion that there is such a thing as too many >> libraries. The article I linked to explains part of why this is the case, in >> a better way than I've been able to phrase it myself. >> > >> > I'm not trying to say "OMG, the way it is now completely sucks!" I'm not >> trying to say "you must do X right now!" I'm just trying to put forward an >> opinion. The opinion that having too many libraries can be a problem, which >> some people don't seem to agree with. (Obviously it isn't *always* bad, I'm >> just saying that sometimes it can be.) >> > >> > That's all I was trying to say. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
