Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> This is why the "ByteString" library was developed.
> 
>   It just shows that the original article which spawned this thread is
> naive. *In theory* you can have all kinds of fancy high-level uber-abstract
> constructs which abstract away all the dirty internal details. *In practice*,
> however, you still need those dirty details if you want any efficiency.
> The fancy theories may be good in a big bunch of programs, but like so many
> abstractions before, it's not the final silver bullet of programming.

The point being, ByteString is implemented as an array, yet still *looks 
like* a normal linked-list. So you get all the nice fancy theory *and* 
the efficient runtime behaviour, all at once. So I'm not sure it is 
"flawed"...

Post a reply to this message