Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 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"...
> 
>   Then why do you need any other type of string?

You probably don't.

It's just that the language standard ("Haskell 98") defines "String" as 
an alias for "[Char]" ("single linked list of characters"). ByteString 
is a 3rd-party library that somebody independently wrote much more 
recently. Adding a new library is quite easy; actually *replacing* 
something existing is much more work.

My hope is that eventually the work that has been done on ByteString 
will be extended to make *all* list processing trippy-fast. There's just 
not much evidence of it happening right now. You know what volunteer 
projects are like...

Post a reply to this message