Proposal: overhaul System.Process
cjs at starling-software.com
Tue May 27 09:14:35 EDT 2008
On 2008-05-27 16:55 +0400 (Tue), Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> you don't consider third way - use library versioning to control
> interface changes.
That would be lovely. When you've implemented it, let us know.
However, given that we don't have this at the moment, we have to
choose between the two extremes of never changing or removing library
functions, and going hog-wild with changes.
> ideally, base library should never change because you canot use
> multiple versions of base library with one ghc version...
Ouch. ByteString, which I am quite heavily dependent on, is nice, but
> btw, what a business solutions you develop with a Haskell? (if it's
> not top secret :D)
I'm building an automatic options trading system. It eats a data feed,
builds a mathematical model of the market, and places orders in an
attempt to make money.
> ultimately, this means less libs on hackage and therefore less
> opportunities to use haskell in your business
Not really. I'd rather have a few good libraries than a large quantity
of them. Haskell's libraries are far better than Java's, IMHO. And a big
reason for that is the willingness to change them, rather than wanting
to freeze them.
Curt Sampson <cjs at starling-software.com> +81 90 7737 2974
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com
More information about the Libraries