2 ms·
Nice post, although I think the author is cheating a little with his Venn diagrams. Most of the time, his language subset contains almost all the valid programs
by sacado2 12y ago
Nice post, although I think the author is cheating a little with his Venn diagrams. Most of the time, his language subset contains almost all the valid programs. I don't think it is true. I'd like to know how one can make hard real-time embedded programming with the only language features he offers, for instance, or anything that requires as much processing power as you can (cryptography, constraint solving, data mining, optimization, simulation, etc.) I am not talking about exotic niches here.
More generally, I'm still waiting for a massively successful piece of software made in a language that would involve no mutation, no null pointers, only one numeric type, etc. Even John Carmack has not yet delivered a revolutionary game engine programmed in Haskell.
- amelius 12y ago> More generally, I'm still waiting for a massively successful piece of software made in a language that would involve no mutation, no null pointers, only one numeric type, etc. Even John Carmack has not yet delivered a revolutionary game engine programmed in Haskell. One can program with mutations in Haskell, and all the side-effects can be kept "sandboxed" at the same time; also I believe the side-effectful parts of a Haskell program can be compiled (in principle) in a way that results in very efficient code, as fast as e.g. C++, though I'm not sure how well current compilers are doing in this respect. So in a way, Haskell (as a language) offers the best of both worlds.