| >(Java and Scala), Ocaml, Except scala and ocaml are both slower than haskell. >The docs you linked to are a 3'rd party package marked "experimental". No it is not. What is the point of just outright lying? >I'll also suggest that you are glossing over most of the difficulties in using them I'll suggest that if you want people to believe your claim, then you should back it up. Show me the difficulty. Because my week 1 students have no trouble with it at all. >It's not so easy to wrap your operations in the appropriate monad You are literally saying "it is not easy to write code". That is like saying "printf" is hard in C because you have to write code. It makes absolutely no sense. Have you actually ever tried learning haskell much less using it? >apply all the necessary strictness annotations to avoid thunks All one of them? Which goes in the exact same place it always does? And which is not necessary at all? >and properly weave this monad with all the others you've got floating around. Ah, trolled me softly. Well done. |
I also don't know why you are behaving as if I dislike Haskell. I enjoy Haskell a lot, I just find getting very good performance to be difficult. You can browse my comment history to see a generally favorable opinion towards Haskell if you don't believe me.
I also gave you a concrete example of a reasonable and necessary task I found difficult: specifically, numerical functions which need to mutate existing arrays rather than allocating new ones, e.g. gradient descent. Every time I've attempted to implement such things in Haskell, it takes me quite a bit of work to get the same performance that Scala/Java/Julia/C gives me out of the box (or Python after using Numba).