Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by adrianN on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:28PM (#13670959)

Creating complex object graphs is also not trivial in Haskell, yet that language seems to do fine with real-world problems.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by jstimpfle on Friday February 17, 2017 @06:11PM (#13672522)

Is it doing fine? There's lots of "cool" stuff, but in my perception it's still a long shot to "fine with real-world problems".

What's a complex real-world program written in Haskell? It seems to be good for trees (compilers like GHC, although it is kind of slow). Is there a non-toy graphics or graph-ical application that is both performant and written in Haskell?

Not denying that it's possible to write C-style in it, of course... only it's not fun.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by pka on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:04AM (#13673807)

At my previous company we used Haskell for a very complex, edge-case ridden, algorithm heavy path finding and pricing backend.

For other uses, [0].

[0] https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by jstimpfle on Saturday February 18, 2017 @02:55AM (#13673994)

Of course it would be nice to have examples that we can actually look at. Also that webpage is known to mostly not point to easy to find information.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by sjolsen on Friday February 17, 2017 @02:32PM (#13671001)

Haskell is also garbage-collected, and lazily evaluated to boot. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rust Sucks If I Fail to Write X by adrianN on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:12AM (#13673830)

Of course not. Haskell is a purely functional language and Rust is an imperative systems language. It can hardly be more Apples to Oranges.

[ Parent | on HN ]