andrewcoppin: > >So I should clarify I'm not a troll and do "see the Haskell light". But > >one thing I can never answer when preaching to others is "what does > >Haskell not do well?" > > > >Usually I'll avoid then question and explain that it is a 'complete' > >language and we do have more than enough libraries to make it useful and > >productive. But I'd be keen to know if people have any anecdotes, > >ideally ones which can subsequently be twisted into an argument for > >Haskell ;) > > Anything with hard performance requirements, and/or that needs to run on > tiny computational resources (CPU speed, RAM size, etc.) > > I'd say "device drivers" too, except that the House guys apparently > managed to do this... > > I'd really love to tell everybody that "Haskell is *the* language of > algorithms" - except that it tends to not be very performant.
Depends on who's writing the Haskell in my experience. GHC's a perfectly capable compiler if you feed it the proper diet. -- Don (Board member of the "Don't think linked lists are the same as UArr Double" movement) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
