andrewcoppin: > Michael Vanier wrote: > >Awesome! > > > >I'm reminded of the IRC post that said that "Haskell is bad, it makes > >you hate other languages." > > How true it is... > > I've often thought about a sort of "elevator pitch" for Haskell. > However, every time I sit down to think about this, I come to the same > conclusion: Haskell isn't "ready" yet. It's sad but it's true. Think > about it; if you're a normal programmer trying to write real-world > programs, the very first things you're likely to want to do include: > > * Create sophisticated GUIs.
gtk2hs > * Read and write standard binary file formats. (Images, compressed > files, etc.) Data.Binary, along with the host of *Codec* libs now on hackage. > * Talk to a database. There's 10 or so database libraries > * Use various network protocols (possibly custom, possibly standardised). See Data.Binary, and hackage. > * Access the Windoze registry and play with COM stuff. Harder, though people do do this on occasion. > * Get system-specific file information (protection bits, modification > times, security information, etc.) System.* > * Query the OS. (How many CPUs? How much RAM? What is my IP address?) System.* > > I don't know how to do any of that in Haskell. Some of it can be done, > just not very easily. Other items are, AFAIK, impossible. All very doable, most trivially. Just not widely described in tutorials, perhaps? -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
