On 8/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Stefan O&#39;Rear</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:stefanor@cox.net">stefanor@cox.net</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Haskell&#39;s purpose: To be a generally cool language<br>Haskell&#39;s competition: C++, SML, ... hundreds of thousands more and I make no assertion of a representative sample ...<br></blockquote></div><br>Well, C++ is not really competitive with Haskell, because C++ does not have a GC, and it&#39;s trivial to corrupt the stack/heap.
<br><br>Wrt imperative languages, it probably makes more sense to compare Haskell with imperative languages that do have a GC and for which it&#39;s near impossible to accidentally corrupt the stack/heap.&nbsp; You&#39;ll find by the way that the imperative GC&#39;d, stack/heap protected languages run *significantly* faster for many (not all I guess?) algorithms and applications.
<br><br>This will change with threading of course, but still if you&#39;ve got a 1024-core Niagara 2012 machine, and the Haskell algorithm runs 65536 times as slowly as a single-core imperative GC&#39;d language program, you&#39;re not going to see a significant speed-up ;-)
<br><br>