2010/1/14 Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com>

>
>
> Well, for one thing, you'd need to use lazy IO to achieve your goal, which
> has some safety issues. As things get more and more complex, the
> requirements of lazy IO will continue to grow. This also has implications
> for number of open file handles and deterministic space usage. Given the
> fact that a lazy bytestring and easily be converted to an enumerator, I
> think it makes sense to start a new package using this approach.
>
> These must be issues of base library developers, not application
developpers. TIme ago a guy said me that using an standard library like
malloc for memory allocation where not the optimum. And he was right.
Fortunately things went in the "non-optimum" direction.  You can make the
application faster by using your own plumbing code instead of standard
libraries provided that you have enough time and knowledge. Because I donĀ“t
have neither of the two  :-) (nor have the people that read my code and
maintain the application), I really like the laziness of haskell and the
lazy bytestring interface.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to