There aren't any other languages that can provide the exact same group of benefits. What you do is you weigh the benefits and disadvantages of the languages yo

There aren't any other languages that can provide the exact same group of benefits. What you do is you weigh the benefits and disadvantages of the languages you are considering. Haskellers just want the benefits of their language known so that it isn't overlooked due to being too difficult/unfamiliar/uncommon etc. This article missed the point of the original article it was addressing, which is that haskell is often fast enough for the job with a minimal amount of optimisation. The problem is that the original article author chose a shootout example, where speed was the objective. Idiomatic Haskell is rarely going to win on speed. The C code in this article is by the authors admission not very robust against invalid input. A robust Haskell implementation would likely take less effort to produce than a robust C implementation. Which is better depends on the goal.