4 ms·
While kind of you to share this datapoint, the fact that there are 5 times more lines of C than Haskell is a bit less than compelling. Especially considering t
by rbxbx 16y ago
While kind of you to share this datapoint, the fact that there are 5 times more lines of C than Haskell is a bit less than compelling. Especially considering the fact that Haskell can achieve c-like performance (ie: not necessarily a glue language).
Good on you for using it in production though, that's more than most of us have achieved, I'm sure.
- plinkplonk 16y ago"While kind of you to share this datapoint, the fact that there are 5 times more lines of C than Haskell is a bit less than compelling" Legacy Code (almost 10 - not 5 - times as much C than Haskell). Can't transform it instantly, much as I would like to. (I did explicitly state that most of this is being moved to Haskell). Why should a pre existing code base preclude the use of Haskell in production and be "not compelling"? I don't get it. But hey if it helps there's even a few thousand lines of Fortran in there (accessed through a C interface). Even less compelling now? ;-) Fwiw, The 20,000 lines of Haskell would be (at least) equivalent to another 100,000 lines of code in C. So at least 1/3 d of my project is in Haskell. And the ratio is increasing everyday. The OP asked for examples of using Haskell in production. I am using Haskell in production. I didn't see any "purity constraints" in the OP's question. But maybe they were implicit who knows. I am just throwing out what I do with Haskell. If you find it "less than compelling", that's fine. My clients (the users of the system) are delighted. Good enough for me!
- eru 16y agoThanks for explaining. I guess rbxbx was just curious, and did not think about the possibility of legacy code.
- oadams 16y agoI find it more compelling, actually. Its not how much code there is, it's what it does. Haskell is way more compact than C.