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

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 19:07:15 EDT 2010

Gene A <yumagene at gmail.com> writes:
> 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!!

So.... as soon as you write the basics of an API you can never change
it, just extend it to avoid making people have to re-write their code
that uses it?

That road leads down the path of complacency and stagnation IMHO...

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list