3 ms·
How those languages fare in other fields, like, constraint programming? http://hackage.haskell.org/package/monadiccp http://hackage.haskell.org/package/monadic
by thesz 15y ago
How those languages fare in other fields, like, constraint programming?
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/monadiccp http://hackage.haskell.org/package/monadiccp
The real point is that Haskell is quite good in many areas and is excellent in parallelism and concurrency. While other languages are excellent in concurrency and not so good in other areas.
Those many languages are the answer for the sole field of concurrency and Haskell is the answer when you combine many fields, one of which could happen to be concurrency.
- agentultra 15y agoSure Haskell is good for more than just concurrent programming, but the article was leaning on concurrency and parallelism in its comparison with Node.js And I should also point out that said "blub" languages can also implement those features which they lack that Haskell includes by design. Some have better features than Haskell, IMO (ie: Qi/Shen sequent types and the ability to turn the type system off when you don't need it). Again, Haskell is a good language. I just don't see it as a "cure." There are many other options.
- Peaker 15y agoHow can the "blub" languages implement Haskell's type-classes as libraries? Or generalized type inference? What about Haskell's higher-kinded polymorphism? And pattern matching? Lisp can do some of these, but it is not exactly a "blub" language. Is there a nice comparison of Qi and Haskell? Once you implement such a large, non-trivial system (such as an advanced type system), I really doubt using Lisp macros rather than implementing a compiler is easier. Macros that do such non-trivial things also do not compose well, so I doubt Lisp is beneficial for this purpose.