> No, but you're on the cutting edge of straw-man argumentation trivializing. If only I was that good! Research contributions generally have be novel AND sign

> No, but you're on the cutting edge of straw-man argumentation trivializing. If only I was that good! Research contributions generally have be novel AND significant. We have seen that novelty alone is not sufficient (sitting in the chair). Significant generally means applicable to a broad range of problems. Monads are significant, as one abstraction can encode a huge range of structures (containers, control flow, etc.) Building a game in Haskell is not a priori novel OR significant. People have done this before (e.g. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Frag http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Frag). Haskell has good facilities for managing concurrency and state. It's not obvious to me that one would need to go beyond these to build a game. A game would probably need to bind to some C libraries but I don't see this as a significant contribution. The original post made the following points: - Writing a game in Haskell in novel (No. See above.) - Writing a game in Haskell will generate significant contributions to the wider community. I don't see this. Furthermore, it trivialised the accomplishments of both the functional programming community and those who really are on the cutting edge of research.