{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicfwdzi3pzs5ulkluz6ouijay3jbrip5vivnczpg63b7zlfascdce",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mi5s4lblxsv2"
  },
  "path": "/t/bootstrapping-xml-schema-definitions-with-claude-opus-4-6-a-case-study-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/13853#post_3",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-27T23:43:46.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "tags": [
    "bootstrappable builds"
  ],
  "textContent": "Being able to support legacy formats like XSD would be great for the Haskell ecosystem, as it would let us do a lot more industrial stuff. Nobody’s ever quite got around to doing it by hand, so if AI can fill in these legacy formats that would be quite powerful.\n\nFrom a bootstrappable builds perspective, the idea that one would bootstrap the XSD parser and then throw away your bootstrap chain worries me. Haskell is a remarkably stable language given the pace of development at the frontier, and it seems that you could keep that around without too much additional effort.",
  "title": "Bootstrapping XML schema definitions with Claude Opus 4.6: A case study (the good, the bad, and the ugly)"
}