[Haskell-cafe] [Newbie] Why or why not haskell ?

[Christophe Plasschaert]

Hi and thanks for the answer,

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:44:22PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> On 12/10/05, Christophe Plasschaert <christophe.plasschaert at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
[....]
> > - erlang;
> 
> Isn't strongly typed, isn't pure, and isn't lazy. However, it IS
> functional so that makes it quite pleasant to program in. Code is
> often short and elegant, just like in Haskell.
> It's excellent for network and concurrent programming. Better than
> Haskell even, despite STM. Erlang was built with this in mind so it's
> quite convenient to send messages etc.

With erlang or haskell, can we play with or implement lower network fuction
(routing daemon interacting with a kernel) or are we stuck with high level
function (application like web server).

[....]
> > - haskell.
> 
> My language of choice for most problems.
> Elegant and pure.
> It does lack some libraries, though. Especially for dealing with
> "lower level" stuff, and there's no real standard (official or de
> facto) data structures library (Edison was a great start, but for some
> reason it never amounted to anything truly useful).
> 
> If you hadn't mentioned networking specifically, I would've
> recommended Haskell without hesitation. But you did, and therefor I'll
> also recommend Erlang.
[....]
In terms of speed, is haskell good enough ?

Chris