On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 21:02 +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote: > On 10/07/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hallo, > > > > On 7/10/07, Hugh Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/8/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I was wittering on about stream fusion and how great it is, and I got a > > > > message from Mr C++. > > > > > > > > (Mr C++ develops commercial games, and is obsessed with performance. For > > > > him, the only way to achieve the best performance is to have total > > > > control over every minute detail of the implementation. He sees Haskell > > > > is a stupid language that can never be fast. It seems he's not alone...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a random observation: the competition for Haskell is not really C or > > > C++. C is basically dead; > > > > 20 years from now people will still be saying this... > > I highly doubt that. For two reasons: > 1. People can only cling to unproductive and clumsy tools for so long > (we don't write much assembly any more...). Capitalism works to ensure > this; people who are willing to switch to more efficient tools will > put the rest out of business (if they really are more efficient). > 2. The many-core revolution that's on the horizon. > > While I personally think that the productivity argument should be > enough to "make the switch", the killer-app (the app that will kill C, > that is :-)) is concurrency. C is just not a tractable tool to program > highly concurrent programs, unless the problem happens to be highly > amenable to concurrency (web servers etc.). We need *something* else. > It may not be Haskell, but it will be something (and it will probably > be closer to Haskell than C!). >
Single Assignment C! (http://www.sac-home.org/) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
