Haskell bashing (was Re: F# vs OCaml vs Python vs Haskell: hash table performance) - comp.lang.functional

Message from discussion Haskell bashing (was Re: F# vs OCaml vs Python vs Haskell: hash table performance)

Adrian Hey

View profile

More options Apr 17, 9:08 am

Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional

From: Adrian Hey <a...@NoSpicedHam.iee.org>

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:08:28 +0100

Local: Fri, Apr 17 2009 9:08 am

Subject: Re: Haskell bashing (was Re: F# vs OCaml vs Python vs Haskell: hash table performance)

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Hello Larry,

Larry Coleman wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:24 am, Adrian Hey <a...@NoSpicedHam.iee.org> wrote:
>> I suspect that most Haskell users use the language this way (as I kind
>> of super calculator or for private "in house" stuff). I do anyway. As
>> you have observed before, what might be regarded as "serious"
>> publicly available applications written in Haskell seem to be pretty
>> rare :-( (ghc,pugs,darcs,xmonad are about all I can think of off the top
>> of my head).

> Don't forget that private "in house" stuff can be very useful to the
> people who created and use it. Just because you can't see it doesn't
> mean it isn't there.

That was my point actually. Haskell has it's problems but it's still
useful. Do I really care if my Haskell prog is 10 times slower than the
same prog written in C? Usually not, if I can write it in 1/10th of the
time.

But then again, if I was writing something where program failure would
result in hugely expensive product recalls, lawsuits or general death
and mahem, I'd probably not chose Haskell (or C for that matter).

>> The second biggest problem with Haskell is..something I dare not mention
>> again (it's tabboo in the Haskell community).

> Don't worry, the vast majority of the Haskell community isn't here;
> they're on fa.haskell. (And BTW, I'm positive that Dr. Harrop knows
> this, which is why the thread is here instead of there.) You may speak
> freely.

OK, I'm in the mood for some mischief making. I was talking about
this problem..

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Top_level_mutable_state

.. this proposed solution ..

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2004-November/007664.html

.. which has even been implemented in jhc ..

http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/manual.html#top-level-actions

.. and the embarrassing fact that the worlds finest imperative
programming language could never be used to implement most of its own
standard or non-standard IO infrastructure (well none of it that I can
think of).

At least that's in its "pure" form. If we allow unsafePerformIO to be
used in an *unsafe* way and hope the compiler doesn't muck things up,
then it is possible.

Mentioning this is always a good way to start a flame war. The result
is always that the moral majority (who I suspect have never tried
implementing any of this stuff) seem determined to deny the minority
(that have) the right to implement safe IO libs.

:-)

Regards
--
Adrian Hey

Reply to author Forward