3 ms·
> binary-trees uses artificial strictness for the sake of the benchmark Using strict evaluation when appropriate is most certainly idiomatic Haskell code. > N
by codygman 12y ago
> binary-trees uses artificial strictness for the sake of the benchmark
Using strict evaluation when appropriate is most certainly idiomatic Haskell code.
> Nine of the ten Haskell implementations are demonstrations of writing C in Haskell (without reaching C's performance).
This (C in Haskell accusation) is debatable, though I'm not sure there's much to be gained even given a totally successful discussion where we both communicate our points 100% effectively.
- jakevn 12y agoThere probably isn't a point to it, as we're likely trying to argue different points. I posit that using Haskell in such a way is a disservice to the language. If you want to code in such a way, why use Haskell? Haskell is plenty fast as is and doesn't need to resort to unsafe code. What's the point?
- tel 12y agoMutability and strictness aren't a disservice to Haskell. They're both considered to be things which are available as choices and should be taken when needed. In particular, the entire ST monad is all about mutability and is very well behaved. Furthermore, even if you write nearly everything in the IO monad Haskell you'll gain a lot from the type system and from easily peeling out small, meaningful pure segments.