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

[Steve Downey]

Competing packages for XML or DBM is really awful, unless they happen
to be interface compatible.
And there is a good way of switching imps at assembly time, such that
lib code that consumes xml doesn't depend on which xml imp I have.
Of course, I realize that a good interface for those is still an open
topic. And bad standards really can be worse than no standard.
So what it comes down to, is, how big a 'standard' library should a
Haskell programmer expect?

On 9/17/07, David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
> > Ketil Malde wrote:
> > >What would the disadvantages be to replacing Data.Map with this
> > >implementation?
> >
> > Personally I don't really like the idea of Data.Map, Data.Map.AVL or
> > any other lib becoming entrenched as official or de-facto standards.
> > It seems like a recipe for stagnation to me. IMHO such libs just
> > shouldn't be bundled with ghc (or any other compiler) for this reason.
>
> To me, it seems like a recipe for usefulness.  It would allow data
> structures to be used in multiple libraries.  Competing packages is fine
> and dandy for something like an XML parser or DBM interface, but I'd like
> data structures to be standard, so that other packages can use them in
> their interfaces without putting undue burden on their users (and without
> the users being forced to figure out how to convert back and forth between
> various different Data.Map.*).
> --
> David Roundy
> Department of Physics
> Oregon State University
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>