[Haskell-cafe] Building "production stable" software in Haskell

David Roundy droundy at darcs.net
Mon Sep 17 13:26:51 EDT 2007

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:50:13PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 07:54:02AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> I'm hoping that at some point we will have something similar to
>     http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?introduction=yes
> where for questions like "how do I import graphics" and "what should I
> use to write a letter" particular packages are recommended, and reasons
> for choosing one over another are given. I've found this invaluable when
> doing LaTeX stuff.

FWIW, I use the same policy with LaTeX packages as I do with Haskell
libraries:  if it's not in debian, then I don't want to use it, unless I
want to hack on it (which isn't true of any LaTeX packages).  Of course, it
helps that almost any useful tex package is part of the tetex distribution,
but I think this is a reasonable model to follow.  I don't want to have to
update my LaTeX code due to packages that change their API due to an
upgrade, and I don't want to have to change my Haskell code due to a
pachages that changes API on upgrade.  I want good libraries, but more than
that, I want stable libraries, and it seems to me that the library
submission process for the "standard" haskell libraries reflects that.
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list