| >It sounds like you're saying "I can optimize my algorithms better than any machine could, so why would I learn how to write code that a machine could reason about more effectively?" Actually, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm using tools that are known to create code that's faster than the equivalent Haskell. >Or more accurately, "I don't write code that needs what Haskell offers, so I'm not going to learn it." Which is fine, so long as you keep writing the same kind of code. I use languages that offer a lot of the tools that Haskell offers, but without as many restrictions. If the restrictions bought me speed (which I thought they did, previously), then they would be valuable. >But really, nobody is selling you functional programming because it'll make your code faster. They are selling it to you because it inspires them. I get that. I can see it in the converts who try to evangelize me. But I think that it's like the people who drank the OOP Koolaid: Yes, there are useful things to learn in other paradigms, but going extreme in any paradigm isn't the best way to code. > It may not be a race horse, but if you ported those improvements into something like C, you'll have a high-performance rocket. Code that could possibly automatically refactor itself into more efficient, more general components. From what I can tell, this is actually not the case. Unless what you're talking about is Go. In which case, carry on. ;) |