> If a tenth of the effort that has gone into implementing Haskell had instead gone into implementing a Haskell-equivalent embedded in CL, that effort would pla

> If a tenth of the effort that has gone into implementing Haskell had instead gone into implementing a Haskell-equivalent embedded in CL, that effort would plausibly be competitive with actual Haskell if not superior. It's such a wildly ridiculous claim though. It implies either 1. that the syntax of Haskell is the majority of the work, such that using a dsl would remove 90% of the effort. 2. Somehow a dsl for Haskell embedded in a lisp would be more efficient to work in, so much so that development would be an order of magnitude faster. 1 is absolute nonsense. 2 might be true in a sense. I doubt it, but even if it were, such a language would no longer be Haskell, so you'd lose out on the value you gain from it's syntax. The same is true for rust. S-expressions are nice, but they aren't always the best way of structuring things, and if you're going to forego them to better embed another language, why constrain yourself to the lisp runtime? The more I look at this, the less sense it makes.