[Haskell-cafe] What *not* to use Haskell for

[Don Stewart]

andrewcoppin:
> >So I should clarify I'm not a troll and do "see the Haskell light". But
> >one thing I can never answer when preaching to others is "what does
> >Haskell not do well?"
> >
> >Usually I'll avoid then question and explain that it is a 'complete'
> >language and we do have more than enough libraries to make it useful and
> >productive. But I'd be keen to know if people have any anecdotes,
> >ideally ones which can subsequently be twisted into an argument for
> >Haskell ;)
> 
> Anything with hard performance requirements, and/or that needs to run on 
> tiny computational resources (CPU speed, RAM size, etc.)
> 
> I'd say "device drivers" too, except that the House guys apparently 
> managed to do this...
> 
> I'd really love to tell everybody that "Haskell is *the* language of 
> algorithms" - except that it tends to not be very performant. 

Depends on who's writing the Haskell in my experience.
GHC's a perfectly capable compiler if you feed it the proper diet.

-- Don (Board member of the "Don't think linked lists are the same as UArr Double" movement)