C maps to the machine well. (Low-level programmers will probably crucify me for that.) But take its lack of closures as an example. Closures require either som

C maps to the machine well. (Low-level programmers will probably crucify me for that.) But take its lack of closures as an example. Closures require either some kind of memory management, or clever program transformations, at which point you lose the simplicity of just having the stack and heap. As much as a generation of Java programmers (like myself) grew up thinking that C++ was old hat and Java was its natural successor, C++ has been quietly ahead of Java with regard to lambdas, generics, type-level trickery. Not to mention performance and backward-compatibility [1]. But reading C++ makes my eyes bleed. I much prefer FP for business logic and web-app development. Haskell is fast but it's no C++, and that's OK. I wouldn't want Haskell to take C/C++ market-share. I want it to compete against other languages that don't give me performance, safety or terseness. [1] C++17 on the Commodore 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkNBP00wJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkNBP00wJE