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

[Gregory Crosswhite]

Or you just put an upper bound on the versions of the fgl library that your program will build against, as you should be doing anyway, and then nothing breaks.

Cheers,
Greg

On Jun 8, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Gene A wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Don Stewart <dons at galois.com> wrote:
> 
> (... There have been a few cases of major API  / rewrites to famous old
> packages causing problems, including:
> 
>    * QuickCheck 1 vs 2
>    * parsec 2 vs 3
>    * OpenGL
> ...)  
>  
> (...  * No additional breakages are introduced. ...)
> 
> Oh lord yes...  just call it fgl3  and leave the fgl package alone.
> This is a source based community here... so you take a package that
> has a dependency on another library and you go out and get that to cover the
> dependency and the API is not the same!!!  AND especially if that might be the 
> only thing you will ever use that lib for ... and you have to stop and rewrite the
> original.. and as someone else said with maybe documentation of that API that
> is not maybe finished or...  NO ... At that point the person will probably just 
> DISCARD the compile on the lib or program that had the dependency.. rather 
> then put the effort in to learn an entire API that doesn't match up..  
> BAD IDEA!!
> 
> cheers,
> gene 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20100608/1928e92e/attachment.html