Have you read your PFDS today?

Purely Functional Data Structures
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf

When a C programmer needs an efficient data structure for a particular problem, he or she can often simply look one up in any of a number of good textbooks or handbooks. Unfortunately, programmers in functional languages such as Standard ML or Haskell do not have this luxury. Although some data structures designed for imperative languages such as C can be quite easily adapted to a functional setting, most cannot, usually because they depend in crucial ways on assignments, which are disallowed, or at least discouraged, in functional languages. To address this imbalance, we describe several techniques for designing functional data structures, and numerous original data structures based on these techniques, including multiple variations of lists, queues, double-ended queues, and heaps, many supporting more exotic features such as random access or efficient catenation.

In addition, we expose the fundamental role of lazy evaluation in amortized functional data structures. Traditional methods of amortization break down when old versions of a data structure, not just the most recent, are available for further processing. This property is known as persistence, and is taken for granted in functional languages. On the surface, persistence and amortization appear to be incompatible, but we show how lazy evaluation can be used to resolve this conflict, yielding amortized data structures that are efficient even when used persistently. Turning this relationship between lazy evaluation and amortization around, the notion of amortization also provides the first practical techniques for analyzing the time requirements of non-trivial lazy programs.
 
Finally, our data structures offer numerous hints to programming language designers, illustrating the utility of combining strict and lazy evaluation in a single language, and providing non-trivial examples using polymorphic recursion and higher-order, recursive modules.

>>24
I get what I need to get done and I get better results than I ever would using your mountain of crap that's written in C anyways. Haskell is not advanced. Don't kid yourself.

>>25
Haskell in its current form will incur overhead, and sometimes this overhead, whether it be time or memory, is enough to make your program useless for its purpose. And even if you have a fast computer with lots of memory and you are able to do what is required with a language that introduces overhead, aren't you curious to see what you could do if it could work 100 times faster and operate in virtual memory on datasets that were 100 times larger? It increases your capabilities which then inspire developments you may have never considered had you stayed on a slow platform that simulated using computers from 10 years ago.

Congratulations, you have reinvented GC.

You have a very narrow idea in your mind of a shared data structure. I bet you assume I use malloc and free as well. And you draw data structures with nodes and arrows like you're in elementary school.