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