# Improving \`memory\` with better abstractions

**URL:** <https://discourse.haskell.org/t/improving-memory-with-better-abstractions/12350>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [June 20, 2025, 10:12pm UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/improving-memory-with-better-abstractions/12350 "2025-06-20T22:12:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mpilgrem](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.haskell.org/mpilgrem/32/2529_2.png) [@mpilgrem](https://discourse.haskell.org/u/mpilgrem)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 4:50pm UTC](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/improving-memory-with-better-abstractions/12350/9 "2025-06-21T16:50:37Z")

</div>

If I implemented my [`memoria` idea](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/fork-memory-as-memoria/11777) I would be (a) a ‘avoid bitrot’-type maintainer (b) definitely in the market for more skilled co-maintainers and (c) at least, a person who could be contacted and could ‘reach out to the community’ if something arose that needed action beyond my own capabilities.

Given the feedback on that idea, I was also thinking that `memoria` could become less ‘monolithic’ as a package by spinning parts out into other packages on which it then depended.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/improving-memory-with-better-abstractions/12350)._