> I'm not sure where you're coming from with your statement about there only being two large haskell programs. I concede the point, but I'd rather say that the

> I'm not sure where you're coming from with your statement about there only being two large haskell programs. I concede the point, but I'd rather say that there's only one large haskell program. Let's consider large C/C++ programs: 1. Chromium clocks in around 4 million lines of code. 2. LLVM/clang together has a (fuzzy) estimate of ~1165539 LOC on my system. 3. GHC has unknown lines of code, and I am unsure as how to count it, whether to include the standard library, etc, but it has at least 100k, so we'll just call that sufficiently large. Now, I know haskell can be fast—I've spent a lot of time myself hand-tuning ghc processed code. But I've noticed that unless I can trace the bottleneck to a single function or small set of functions, optimization to near-c levels is extremely difficult. Now, even 2-3x slower than c—far slower than ghc-generated code—is still very fast, so I'm not calling haskell slow. Far from it.