On Thu, 19 May 2011, Andrew Coppin wrote:
To all the people who look at Hackage, see that there are 6 different
libraries for processing Unicode text files, and claim that this is somehow a
*good* thing, I offer the above essay as a counter-example.
Recently I searched for an advanced way
Librarians have been struggling for years with classifying topics; I
don't imagine classifying coding libraries as any easier. :)
--
--
Regards,
KC
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
In terms of making the interface more friendly to beginners, I wonder if
this is partially an issue of how to search and how to format the results. I
just searched several places for xml rpc and found:
Hackage: the first few links from the google search are different versions
of haxr
Hayoo: 0
On 19/05/2011 10:43 PM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Andrew Coppinandrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
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.
On 19/05/2011 11:00 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote:
I agree that from an end-user's perspective it isn't always a clear win,
but I do think that having a bunch of libraries (even ones that do the
same thing) an indicator of a healthy, active, and enthusiastic
community.
I won't argue with that. ;-)
On 19/05/2011 08:39 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
Regarding the Unicode problem, there is a standard solution today: use
the text package. Yes, you may use other libraries, but text is the
recommended one.
Is that true? Last I heard, there was still some debate about the
relative
Hi,
while I'm still a Haskell learner, I wanted to contribute my point of
view, which I hope is different enough to be useful.
First, of course we don't need to restrict Hackage to contain just 1
library for every purpose, we just need to give incentives for people
to collaborate. And if they
On 19 May 2011 20:50, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution... I think that some ratings, like used directly by ###
packages/projects and indirectly by ### would be nice, but not much.
Maybe my reverse dependencies mirror of hackage could be useful here:
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
Am 20.05.2011 00:00, schrieb Daniel Peebles:
I don't think there's really a clear solution to that though, other
than gently encouraging collaboration and scoping out of existing work
before starting new work. But people generally hate working with other
people's code, so I doubt that'll have
What's stopping it from being put on the official hackage? I use it quite a
lot to find well established packages and/or example code, and am quite fond
of it. But it is only visible when you know that this exists.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Roel van Dijk vandijk.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On
On 20 May 2011 12:46, Markus Läll markus.l...@gmail.com wrote:
What's stopping it from being put on the official hackage? I use it quite a
lot to find well established packages and/or example code, and am quite fond
of it. But it is only visible when you know that this exists.
Poor timing. I
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 20:33, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ok, I'll bite.
To all the people who look at Hackage, see that there are 6 different
libraries for processing Unicode text files, and claim that this is somehow
a *good* thing, I offer the above essay as a
Hey now.. maybe so, but this thread is an interesting one.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Prolly noted already but the original presumption is false.
The optimal and right thing would be if there was an evolutionary
set in each functional area from which you could choose and
a common framework in which any selection from that area
could work.
Otherwise seems likes a purposeless
2011/5/19 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html
Some of you might have seen this. Here's the short version:
Lisp is so powerful that it discourages reuse. Why search for and reuse an
existing implementation, when it's so
I think this is much less applicable to Haskell than to Lisp.
I think that most of intra-incompatibilities of Lisp stem from side
effects. The rest is mostly due to (relatively) weak type system which
let some errors slip.
And remaining percent or two can be attributed to the power of Lisp. ;)
2011/5/19 Vo Minh Thu not...@gmail.com:
2011/5/19 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html
Some of you might have seen this. Here's the short version:
Lisp is so powerful that it discourages reuse. Why search for and reuse an
I think what Andrew meant is that it's not a good idea to have big
pile of different implementations of the same library, and all trying
to solve the very same problem.
I see this kind of problem in the java community. It seems that
developers have a need to create everything from scratch more
Correct my ignorance as I'm rather new around here, but I'm not sure if I
actually think this happens that much.
Different approaches are often put forth, which does mean that there are
incompatible libraries that fill the same space for a while, but it seems that
once it becomes clear what
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution... I think that some ratings, like used directly by ###
packages/projects and indirectly by ### would be nice, but not much.
As for me, I like the diversity of packages. They attack close
problems from
Och Mr Coppin
Lisp is a fine language, but all Lisp essays you'll find on the
internet except Richard Gabriel's Worse is Better are absolute tosh.
Read Olin Shiver's introduction to SRE regex notation for an
intelligent contribution to the 6 different libraries problem you
seem to be having,
This is classic community trolling behavior, Andrew.
You post something inflammatory, questioning the core value of our
project, without a clear argument about why it article relevant, and
then step away to let a monster thread consume everything, as people
try to work out what your point was,
On 19/05/2011 07:56 PM, Gilberto Garcia wrote:
I think what Andrew meant is that it's not a good idea to have big
pile of different implementations of the same library, and all trying
to solve the very same problem.
I'm glad somebody understood what I was trying to get at.
I'm not saying that
On 19/05/2011 08:39 PM, Stephen Tetley wrote:
Och Mr Coppin
Lisp is a fine language, but all Lisp essays you'll find on the
internet except Richard Gabriel's Worse is Better are absolute tosh.
This wasn't an attempt to bash Lisp.
This is about all those people who think having multiple
On 19/05/2011 08:58 PM, Don Stewart wrote:
This is classic community trolling behavior, Andrew.
And publicly calling somebody a troll isn't trolling behaviour?
I'm going to answer the rest of this off-list. I'm sure nobody else
wants to hear it.
Andrew, you are being non constructive.
You are saying We should.
Who we, Andrew ? Who are you referring to ?
The developers who created those six different unicode libraries are not united
under any umbrella you can call we.
The reason those six libraries existis is NOT because some mysterious
On 19 May 2011 21:20, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
This is about all those people who think having multiple libraries which
only solve half the problem is somehow a good thing.
Och (number 2)
Those people are the Straw Men - you can wave at them from your car
window when
On 19/05/2011 09:34 PM, vagif.ve...@gmail.com 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
ultimately the ideal is to end up with one library that solves the problem
well, which everybody can use.
Nonsense. One library that everyone can use with either end up being so small
in functionality that it's actually useless, or so general that either it
requires tons and tons of
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
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 don't think so, the article seems to
I wonder if it would be useful to be able to download and use only necessary
modules from Hackage. This way if someone writes, say a superior XML parsing
API, and someone else has better generating API, the user can pull just
those modules , write the glue and have the best of both worlds.
On the
The way I understand it, you're saying not that we shouldn't be doing it
this way (since it isn't centrally managed, it's the only possible way), but
that we shouldn't be bragging (for lack of a better word) that we have
lots of libraries that do a specific thing. Or if not that, then at least
I too am not all that concerned about the library proliferation, and I
think such work can definitely help find the best design for certain
abstractions. There are no less than 3 iteratee libraries - 4
including liboleg's original IterateeM formulation - and a number of
FRP implementations as
See the Haskell Platform.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 19, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 19/05/2011 09:34 PM, vagif.ve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew, you are being non constructive.
It seems I'm being misunderstood.
Some people seem to hold the
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
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
