6 ms·
I think this is more a matter of me expressing myself poorly than a real disagreement; we seem to be saying the same thing. What I meant is more that the initi
by Veedrac 9y ago
I think this is more a matter of me expressing myself poorly than a real disagreement; we seem to be saying the same thing.
What I meant is more that the initial choice of C++ tends to come from a requirement somewhere in the program for the low-level control that C++ needs, rather than the whole thing, and making an argument that Haskell is performant enough to replace C++ only makes sense if it's either fast enough for that case too, or you're willing to have a heterogenous codebase and you don't really care about Haskell's performance anyway.
- kazinator 9y ago> that the initial choice of C++ tends to come from a requirement somewhere in the program for the low-level control that C++ needs Even that doesn't always come from such a requirement. Maybe it's just, "the common denominator of expertise on this team is C++ so we will use that". That original requirement for low-level control is now 5% of the code base, 95% of which is still C++ because of the effect that it's easier to just add more C++ than to balkanize the project with new languages. The parser adds 1%, and scans a config file only about every 100 days days when the C++ server is restarted; why would it have to be fast ...
- Veedrac 9y agoI agree with what you're saying; I wasn't trying to speak in absolutes.