3 ms·
A hot take: I'd argue that in that case Haskell is not the right tool for the job, anything with assembler support is (C++/Rust). Haskell is still awesome in d
by danielscrubs 6y ago
A hot take: I'd argue that in that case Haskell is not the right tool for the job, anything with assembler support is (C++/Rust).
Haskell is still awesome in doing practical computer science and an eye opener in the power of types, but you are going to throw most of the power away of you start to rely on things that are not formally verified. As soon as you are in "this is semi-correct and semi-defined" you might as well use another tool and let Haskell try to focus on the "100% correct, given x,y and z"-crowd.
I know, I know this is a very simplified view, and it's not 100% correct, but that is what I want Haskell to strive for.
- moomin 6y agoThe thing is, Haskell's pretty much the only language with anything approaching a "sufficiently smart compiler". And it performs its optimisations by having a great deal of knowledge it gets from the type system. No, it isn't faster than Rust, but it's an open research problem and I think it's awesome people are still working on it when most platforms have given up. Besides, it turns out that linear types are useful _without_ performance optimisations: they're very good for modelling state machines e.g. socket lifecycles.
- danielscrubs 6y agoI agree