[Haskell-cafe] Re: Rewriting a famous library and using the same name: pros and cons

Stephen Tetley stephen.tetley at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 13:05:04 EDT 2010

Hello all

While new libraries develop at pace, their documentation rarely does;
so I'd have to disagree with John's claim that re-naming libraries
makes development by new users harder. I'd argue that having tutorials
not work for later revisions is more confusing than having various
packages doing the same thing. I'd also contend that beginners are
better off lagging behind the cutting edge and using Parsec 2,
QuickCheck 1, Haskore-vintage, as the earlier version all have
comprehensive documentation - Parsec 2 and Haskore have extensive
manual/tutorials, QuickCheck 1 was small enough that the original
QuickCheck paper covered its use.

An advantage of separate names (both for the package name and module
name-space) is that its easier to have both packages installed at the
same time - the old one to work with while learning the package, the
new one if other installed packages depend on it. This can still be
done with package-hiding but its less straight-forward.

Best wishes


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list