[HOpenGL] Re: [Haskell] ANNOUNCE: OpenGLRaw 1.0.0.0

[Conal Elliott]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Sven Panne <Sven.Panne at aedion.de> wrote:

>
> A few final remarks: Leaving out "Graphics." completely would be a very bad
> idea, the naming hierarchy should reflect the underlying conceptual
> hierarchy.
> The only problem with hierarchies in general is that sometimes the position
> in
> it is not very clear.
>

Clay Shirky's points in include that this "sometimes" is more like "nearly
always", and that the heart of the problem is "the" in "the position" (in a
hierarchy).  This problem and others discussed at
http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html .

I have e.g. never fully understood why "Monad" and "Applicative" are below
> "Control", but "Foldable" is below "Data"...
>

Monoid as well.  Type classes in general cut across distinctions like
Control and Data, so I don't think we'll ever have a comfortable place to
put them in the existing hierarchy.  If anything, I recommend the top-level
name "Class".

  - Conal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/attachments/20090617/10f682f8/attachment.html