[Haskell-cafe] Re: Go Haskell! -> array libraries
rl at cse.unsw.edu.au
Fri Nov 28 19:00:38 EST 2008
On 29/11/2008, at 10:47, Claus Reinke wrote:
>> But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
>> designed libraries.
>> I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
>> also need to step back and abstract.
>> -- Lennart
> Especially so if the free marketeers claim there is something
> fundamentally wrong with the standard libraries and language, as in
> the case of arrays. When someone did that nice little survey of the
> last bunch of array libraries (Bulat, I think? now in the wiki
> book), I was hoping there would be a grand unification soon.
> Instead, it seems that those who have worked most with Haskell
> arrays recently have simply abandoned all of the standard array
> Okay, why not, if there are good reasons. But can't you document
> those reasons, for each of your alternative proposals, so that
> people have some basis on which to choose (other than who has the
> loudest market voice;-)?
I think so far, it's always been the same two reasons: efficiency and
ease of use. H98 arrays are inherently inefficient and IMO not very
easy to use, at least not for the things that I'm doing.
> And would it be difficult for you all to agree on a standard API, to
> make switching between the alternatives easy (if
> it is indeed impossible to unify their advantages in a single library,
> the reasons for which should also be documented somewhere)?
Yes, it is very difficult. A sensible API for a standard array library
is something that needs more research. FWIW, I don't know of any other
language that has what I'd like to see in Haskell. C++ probably comes
closest but they have it easy - they don't do fusion.
> And what is wrong about Simon's suggestion, to use the standard
> array lib APIs on top of your implementations?
Again, IMO H98 arrays are only suitable for a very restricted set of
More information about the Haskell-Cafe