Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp seems to access the Internet only to tell me I've mis-spelt things. 

  It's "misspelt"! ;)

> OTOH, Warp is clearly a God-like programmer, and when He says something 
> about programming, he's usually right. (Though not always.) Go ask him 
> what the most efficient way to implement a Huffman tree in C++ is; I bet 
> he knows.

  I'm not always right. Making yourself look smarter than you really are
is an art.

  Of course when someone more knowledgeable about the subject calls your
bluff, it can be really embarrassing. Admitting that you were wrong can
be really difficult.

> But wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. And, 
> unfortunately for me, Warp is right, as usual. Haskell sucks. And no 
> amount of words from me is going to change it. My pride and joy actually 
> sucks, and I can't do anything about it.

  Haskell doesn't suck. The only problem I find with it is that it's not
very approachable. It's hard to learn.

  It also seems that while Haskell can be used to create very efficient
programs, it often happens that some properties of the language kick you
in the groin when you try to do things in a simple way, resulting in a
very inefficient program. You really need to know the inner workings of
the language, the compiler and the libraries in order to be able to create
the efficient implementation.

  (Of course the same is true for C++ and probably all languages. It's just
that Haskell seems to be often advertised as "if it compiles, it works, and
it's efficient", which doesn't seem true to me. You can often write clever
one-liners which achieve things which would need dozens of lines in other
languages, but that doesn't automatically mean the resulting program is
efficient (or even correct).)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message