While the earliest versions of Haskell date back that far, those combinators only came out in 2007 (IIRC).

Those functions weren’t part of Haskell back then.

What do you mean? That's my point exactly. While Haskell has that now, they didn't always have it.

If a programming language is created in 2019 they can certainly instantly incorporate insights from existing technology in their design an plans. However, that doesn't mean that any programming language/compiler project started today will instantly have all of those features. Things take time in each new framework.

I don't know what your point is, then.

Haskell didn’t have it originally. Ok. But what do you think that says about whether it’s a new idea or not? What’s the connection? Why mention it in this thread about whether it's a new idea or not?

At what point did anyone claim it was a new idea? The blog post cites prior art in the very first paragraph. Not in a footnote—in the main text. The top post here cites several other languages with a similar model. This entire thread reads like a bunch of dudes who are really dying to "well, actually" someone.

I think people were responding to

> The only systems which have supported compute-oriented composable parallelism like this are Cilk and TBB

Because it isn’t true. Haskell is an example of why it isn’t true.

It's extremely debatable that Haskell is compute-oriented. I know that Haskell people like to talk about doing numerical computing in Haskell, but in reality it does not seem to be a thing. No one has ever used Haskell to implement large scale scientific computations on supercomputers, for example.

No one? Ever? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpe.3746

This particular example appears to be an implementation of a 'Computer algebra system', which seems to be a type of symbolic computing rather than numerical computing.

You're really asking for a Dan Luu sequel here.