[raiph]

It's not a comparison. It's not an appetizer for P6 or ways in which P6 comes off better than Haskell. It's not an overview or tutorial for learning P6 if you come from a Haskell background.

It's for someone who has already decided they like P6, has learned the basics, and wants to tighten up their understanding of P6 as it relates to Haskell things they know. It deliberately picks things that are basic in Haskell even if they're not so basic in P6.

That's why it says:

> Note that this should not be mistaken for a beginner tutorial or overview of Perl 6; it is intended as a technical reference for Perl 6 learners with a strong Haskell background.

[ktpsns]

You're certainly right, but that doesn't change my point that, by just looking at the code, Haskell seems to have the better solutions for the problems.

This conclusion is clearly unfair because the author tried to port simple Haskell solutions to Perl.

[raiph]

> You're certainly right, but that doesn't change my point that, by just looking at the code, Haskell seems to have the better solutions for the problems.

Sure. But that's an inevitable consequence of what the document aims to achieve.

The problems chosen were the ones for which Haskell had simpler solutions.

The point of the document was to help someone who is already motivated to learn P6 and knows Haskell to get to grips with P6.

If the point were to motivate someone who knows Haskell to want to learn P6 then the examples chosen would be ones for which the P6 solution is better than the Haskell one.