Prelude replacement ? about rio HOT 5 CLOSED

I don't think there's anything left to address on this issue, closing.

from rio.

foundation replaces functionality from existing libraries like text, bytestring, and vector. There are really good reasons for foundation's decision on that front, but it hurts the adoption story. rio embraces existing well used libraries instead. That's by far the biggest difference between the two libraries.

from rio.

I really like both projects and I think Haskell would benefit from adoption of both. rio has a more incrementalist / evolutionary attitude whereas foundation has more of a revolutionary attitude.

I have written some ideas here about one potential approach for allowing a bit more incremental adoption of foundation. Still a bit like "flipping a switch", but a switch that hopefully wouldn't allow any changes to the code of your dependencies. That's all very speculative though, and would only bring about compatibility of the types. With foundation there is still the cognitive overhead of learning a whole new module hierarchy / set of function names (though many are reminiscent of older libraries). rio will have some new stuff, but the learning curve will be much more gradual for those familiar with the current commonly used libraries.

from rio.

Alright so one big difference is that foundation is not backwards compatible and rio is ..
It looks like rio is offering some additional things next to a prelude replacement. Would it be possible to use these additional things with the foundation prelude? Or does everything in rio integrate with each other?

from rio.

They're mostly parallel efforts. RIO is intended to work with existing libraries. Foundation is intended to replace and improve upon existing libraries.

from rio.