My post was more for the benefit of other readers, who might have otherwise concluded that modern GHC is "slow". There are many ways to compare the 'execution time' of e.g. Java and Haskell. Idiomatic Haskell code may well be slower than (traditional) idiomatic Java code. But these days more and more functional code is written in Java/Scala/Clojure and the JVM does not optimise such code nearly as well as GHC.

> Idiomatic Haskell code may well be slower…

So it's a good thing that those "benchmarks do not compare like-for-like" because that allows the inclusion of idiomatic Haskell code?

I can certainly see merit in that idea. The problem is that it's often not clear what the idiomatic style for a particular language applied to a particular problem is. Many of the Haskell solutions also look quite old, predating for example the now standard Haskell "Vector" library.

It's a useful resource, but I think we should we wary of making very general remarks based on the results.

We should we wary of making very general remarks, period.

The benchmarks game is not restricted to "the idiomatic style" so it isn't a problem that "the idiomatic style" for a particular problem is often not clear.

> Many of the Haskell solutions also look quite old…

We would be very happy to accept new programs:

https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...

> We should we wary of making very general remarks, period.

Do you mean you agree? Do you mean the statement is possibly self-defeating? Do you mean you noticed the typo? Do you mean…?