Haskell the good

It's a good idea to learn Haskell even if you don't like it or agree with its ideals.

The only ideal for Haskell is to be a testbed for different programming ideas.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERY PROGRAM WRITTEN IN HASKELL DISAPPEARED?

NO ONE WOULD NOTICE

why?

JACKSON FIVE GET

>>1
Its a good idea to cripple your mind with high-level abstraction sugar that will cause you to lose any programming skills?
Haskell is academic lego-composition bullshit. Real programming requires writing special, handmade algorithms and non-generic code. Haskell replaces it with mental masturbation about how to string together lego blocks in most autismal way possible.
Plus, this idiotic language forces lazy evaluation everywhere, relies heavily on GC and lists(even more than Lisp) and its syntax is mix of Python, Ocaml and asciified APL.

>>6
I laughed at your post. It wouldn't sound satirical several decades ago.
And yes, the future of programming is high-level lego composition languages as they allow highest programmer productivity. Nobody needs your hand-crafted algorithms when one can just pile some blocks and get a high-level solution without ever thinking about machine details.

>>3
Facebook would notice, as well as users of xmonad, pandoc and several websites powered by Yesod/Snap/Scotty.

>>6
The problem is Haskell lego blocks are enterprisey,generic and inefficient which makes programs using them slow and wasteful of memory. Same pattern with C macros would compile to efficient assembler because macros are zero-cost abstractions and C would allow to insert special case code instead of a "lego block" anywhere.

>>9
That's not a problem because programmer time is more expensive than machine time. Performance issues can be solved by throwing more hardware at em.

>>10
People prefer optimizing Haskell to resemble C
http://paulspontifications.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-haskell-is-faster-than-c.html

>>11

Conventional wisdom says that no programming language is faster than C, and all higher level languages (such as Haskell) are doomed to be much slower because of their distance from the real machine.

It's very easy to make a programming language faster than C, but hard to make a garbage collected or dynamically typed language faster than C.

>>11
Nowhere in this post is there talk about optimizing Haskell to resemble C. In fact, if you look at the code, it uses a lot of functional Lego combinations. Try rewriting this in C, for example:

getBlocks = map mkBlock . drop 1 . B.split '>' <$> B.getContents
where
mkBlock bs1 = Block h t
where (h, t) = B.break (== '\n') bs1

Oh and you didn't even get to the bottom paragraph, did you?

But if you aren't planning to do a significant amount of micro-optimisation then you don't need C. Haskell will give you the same performance, or better, and cut your development and maintenance costs by 75 to 90 percent as well.

get the fuck out >>13

>>14
Why don't you get some ointment for your hurting butthole.

>>13

Try rewriting this in C, for example:
Haskell will give you the same performance, or better

C version is twice faster
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=revcomp

>>16
Also, the best haskell(1.30s) looks very imperative to me
Its highly likely the getBlocks version will be 4 or 5 times slower.

>>13
show some sample input & output first so I don't have to figure out this esoteric crap lol

>>18
Do you even know English?
Please elaborate on the subject of your sentance fragment there lad I don't understand.

>>19
nah. read this during your indoctrination classes ...

#include <stdio.h>

int read_fasta_sequence(char *hdr, int nh, char *seq, int ns, FILE *fin)
{
char ch;

if (fscanf(fin, " %c", &ch) != 1 || ch != '>' || !fgets(hdr, nh, fin))
return 0;
while (fscanf(fin, " %c", &ch) == 1 && ch != '>')
if (ns-- > 1)
*seq++ = ch;
*seq = '\0';
ungetc(ch, fin);
return (ns > 0);
}

int main(void)
{
char hdr[0x100], seq[0x10000];

while (read_fasta_sequence(hdr, sizeof hdr, seq, sizeof seq, stdin))
printf(">%s\n%s\n", hdr, seq);
}