Re: [Haskell-cafe] [Newbie] Why or why not haskell ?

Hi and thanks for the answer, On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:44:22PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

On 12/10/05, Christophe Plasschaert wrote: [....]

...

- erlang;

Isn't strongly typed, isn't pure, and isn't lazy. However, it IS functional so that makes it quite pleasant to program in. Code is often short and elegant, just like in Haskell. It's excellent for network and concurrent programming. Better than Haskell even, despite STM. Erlang was built with this in mind so it's quite convenient to send messages etc.

With erlang or haskell, can we play with or implement lower network fuction (routing daemon interacting with a kernel) or are we stuck with high level function (application like web server). [....]

...

- haskell.

My language of choice for most problems. Elegant and pure. It does lack some libraries, though. Especially for dealing with "lower level" stuff, and there's no real standard (official or de facto) data structures library (Edison was a great start, but for some reason it never amounted to anything truly useful).

If you hadn't mentioned networking specifically, I would've recommended Haskell without hesitation. But you did, and therefor I'll also recommend Erlang. [....] In terms of speed, is haskell good enough ?

Chris