On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:14:18AM -0700, John A. De Goes wrote: > But really, what's the point? FFI code is fragile, often uncompilable > and unsupported, and doesn't observe the idioms of Haskell nor take > advantage of its powerful language features. Rather than coding through
That is an extraordinarily cruel, and inaccurate, sweep of FFI. I've worked with C bindings to several high-level languages, and I must say that I like FFI the best of any I've used. It's easy to use correctly, stable, and solid. If anything, it suffers from under-documentation. The whole point of FFI is to bring other languages into the Haskell fold. So you can, say, talk to a database using its C library and wind up putting the strongly-typed HaskellDB atop it. Or you can write an MD5 algorithm in C and make it look like a regular Haskell function. > You can indeed fit a square peg in a round hole, if you pound hard > enough. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. And with that, I fully agree. -- Joh _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe