consalus: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Dave Tapley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everyone > > > > So I should clarify I'm not a troll and do "see the Haskell light". But > > one thing I can never answer when preaching to others is "what does > > Haskell not do well?" > > > > Usually I'll avoid then question and explain that it is a 'complete' > > language and we do have more than enough libraries to make it useful and > > productive. But I'd be keen to know if people have any anecdotes, > > ideally ones which can subsequently be twisted into an argument for > > Haskell ;) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > I think some would disagree with me, but I would advise against using > haskell for a task that necessarily requires a lot of mutable state > and IO and for which serious performance is a big factor. I'm not > talking about stuff that can be approximated by zippers and whatnot, > but rather situations where IORefs abound and data has identity. > Haskell can quite capably do mutable state and IO, but if your task is > all mutable state and IO, I'd lean toward a language that makes it > easier (OCaml, perhaps).
Do you have an example of a mutable state/ IO bound application, like, hmm, a window manager or a revision control system or a file system...? -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
