 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's a little different to saying it sucks.
>
> As a tool for constructing complex software applications, it sucks.
Haskell sucks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/10/2010 11:38 AM, scott wrote:
>>> That's a little different to saying it sucks.
>>
>> As a tool for constructing complex software applications, it sucks.
>
> Haskell sucks!
Right. And what objective information are you basing that on?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> As a tool for constructing complex software applications, it sucks.
>>
>> Haskell sucks!
>
> Right. And what objective information are you basing that on?
It's slow and apparently very difficult to write anything with complex sound
or graphics on Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Haskell sucks!
>>
>> Right. And what objective information are you basing that on?
>
> It's slow
This is easy to disprove.
A better statement might be "it's easy to accidentally make your code
very inefficient".
> and apparently very difficult to write anything with complex
> sound or graphics on Windows.
I'll give you that one.
(You don't need "complex" in there either. Just writing pixels onto the
screen is tricky under Windows, and I've *never* seen sound work at all.)
Things are improving in this direction, but there remains a long way to go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's slow
>
> This is easy to disprove.
Like this?
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=ghc
> A better statement might be "it's easy to accidentally make your code very
> inefficient".
OK.
> (You don't need "complex" in there either. Just writing pixels onto the
> screen is tricky under Windows, and I've *never* seen sound work at all.)
ie it sucks! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/10/2010 02:10 PM, scott wrote:
>>> It's slow
>>
>> This is easy to disprove.
>
> Like this?
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=ghc
How about this?
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
Notice that out of the 20+ languages in each benchmark, Haskell is in #5
place. So out of 20+ languages, only 4 of them managed to be faster.
That's not exactly my idea of "slow". Haskell is showing up as faster
than F#, C#, Erlang, Lisp, OCaml, Clean, most of the Java stuff, Fortran
(!!), Pascal, Python, Ruby, and the rest of the shooting match.
Of course, if somebody had the time and patience to write an entry in
assembly, it would beat everything on the chart, but there we are...
>> (You don't need "complex" in there either. Just writing pixels onto
>> the screen is tricky under Windows, and I've *never* seen sound work
>> at all.)
>
> ie it sucks! :-D
There's a bit of a difference between "this language has a fundamentally
flawed design" and "this language was implemented by a bunch of Unix
enthusiasts and is therefore poorly supported on Windows".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How about this?
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
Almost twice as slow as C/C++, that means if you're developing a program
that does anything in realtime, you can do twice as much in C++ than
Haskell. That sucks. All the other slower languages suck even more badly
for realtime stuff.
> There's a bit of a difference between "this language has a fundamentally
> flawed design" and "this language was implemented by a bunch of Unix
> enthusiasts and is therefore poorly supported on Windows".
Just different reasons for sucking. BTW, can you easily do
sound/image/video stuff with Haskell on Unix then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/10/2010 03:42 PM, scott wrote:
> Almost twice as slow as C/C++, that means if you're developing a program
> that does anything in realtime, you can do twice as much in C++ than
> Haskell. That sucks. All the other slower languages suck even more badly
> for realtime stuff.
Right. And when somebody writes the benchmarks in assembly and it's
another 80% faster, that will mean that C sucks, right?
Never mind "minor details" such as reliability, maintainability,
security, development effort, portability...
> BTW, can you easily do
> sound/image/video stuff with Haskell on Unix then?
Presumably. I can't say I've tried it. There is an entire mailing list
devoted to that topic though. I gather people have written algorithmic
music composers, sound synthesizers, and all sorts of other crazy stuff
in Haskell.
FWIW, it's not *impossible* to do graphics on Windows. I've done it.
It's just more fiddly than it should be. (E.g., you have to install GTK
first, and then compile Gtk2hs from source, and when you finally get it
to work, all your applications look like Linux apps rather than native
Windows apps...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Right. And when somebody writes the benchmarks in assembly and it's
> another 80% faster, that will mean that C sucks, right?
Now you're getting the hang of it :-) You see that pretty much every
language can be called "perfectly suited" or "totally sucks" depending on
what you want to actually do with it. If you want to compare languages then
*first* you need to explicity state what it is you want to do. You can't
just say "everyone agrees language X sucks", because they don't.
> FWIW, it's not *impossible* to do graphics on Windows. I've done it. It's
> just more fiddly than it should be. (E.g., you have to install GTK first,
> and then compile Gtk2hs from source, and when you finally get it to work,
> all your applications look like Linux apps rather than native Windows
> apps...)
Sounds like a good definition of "sucky" to me (if you're trying to write an
app with a Windows GUI) :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now you're getting the hang of it :-) You see that pretty much every
> language can be called "perfectly suited" or "totally sucks" depending
> on what you want to actually do with it. If you want to compare
> languages then *first* you need to explicity state what it is you want
> to do. You can't just say "everyone agrees language X sucks", because
> they don't.
It defies belief that anybody could disagree that BASIC is a horrifying
abomination that should never be used for anything but the most trivial
programming tasks. I mean, hell, that's even the original *design goal*:
it's designed for beginners to do simple stuff with.
Still, this is the Internet. Any statement, no matter how irrefutable,
will none the less be refuted by somebody. (Moon landings, anyone?)
>> FWIW, it's not *impossible* to do graphics on Windows. I've done it.
>> It's just more fiddly than it should be. (E.g., you have to install
>> GTK first, and then compile Gtk2hs from source, and when you finally
>> get it to work, all your applications look like Linux apps rather than
>> native Windows apps...)
>
> Sounds like a good definition of "sucky" to me (if you're trying to
> write an app with a Windows GUI) :-D
Well, I wrote a couple of small GUI tools that are in production use
here where I work. None of the lab guys actually give a damn that the
GUI looks slightly different.
Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't sucky...
(I should point out that the situation is slowly improving. It's just
that there's still a long way left to go.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
