<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Haskell-Libraries on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/haskell-libraries/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Haskell-Libraries on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/haskell-libraries/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Haskell CLI Parsing in 2026: optparse-applicative vs optparse-generic vs cmdargs — Which Should You Use?</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-08-26-haskell-cli-libraries-optparse-applicative-optparse-generic-cmdargs-comparison/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-08-26-haskell-cli-libraries-optparse-applicative-optparse-generic-cmdargs-comparison/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Haskell has three serious command-line parsing libraries, and they embody three completely different philosophies: composition, derivation, and reflection. Choosing the wrong one is not fatal — but it determines whether your &lt;code&gt;--help&lt;/code&gt; output is a pleasure to read, whether flags parse at compile time, and whether you can add a subcommand without touching the parser at all. After comparing &lt;strong&gt;optparse-applicative&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;optparse-generic&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;cmdargs&lt;/strong&gt; against real usage patterns, one clear winner emerges for new projects — and one library you should only touch if you are maintaining legacy code.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
