[pkofod]

What do you mean? That's my point exactly. While Haskell has that now, they didn't always have it.

If a programming language is created in 2019 they can certainly instantly incorporate insights from existing technology in their design an plans. However, that doesn't mean that any programming language/compiler project started today will instantly have all of those features. Things take time in each new framework.

[chrisseaton]

I don't know what your point is, then.

Haskell didn’t have it originally. Ok. But what do you think that says about whether it’s a new idea or not? What’s the connection? Why mention it in this thread about whether it's a new idea or not?

[StefanKarpinski]

At what point did anyone claim it was a new idea? The blog post cites prior art in the very first paragraph. Not in a footnote—in the main text. The top post here cites several other languages with a similar model. This entire thread reads like a bunch of dudes who are really dying to "well, actually" someone.

[chrisseaton]

I think people were responding to

> The only systems which have supported compute-oriented composable parallelism like this are Cilk and TBB

Because it isn’t true. Haskell is an example of why it isn’t true.

[StefanKarpinski]

It's extremely debatable that Haskell is compute-oriented. I know that Haskell people like to talk about doing numerical computing in Haskell, but in reality it does not seem to be a thing. No one has ever used Haskell to implement large scale scientific computations on supercomputers, for example.

[tavert]

No one? Ever? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpe.3746

[DNF2]

This particular example appears to be an implementation of a 'Computer algebra system', which seems to be a type of symbolic computing rather than numerical computing.