Revision as of 00:17, 12 December 2007
Added the quote by Graham Klyne.
Over the years I've received numerous complaints about the quicksort example. But none of the complainers sent me anything better so it's still here. Anyone want to come up with a better example?
--John Peterson 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps an in-place quicksort? —Ashley Y 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Change the C to mergesort? Because that really is what the Haskell code does. (Okay, sure, it's a funny 3-way, bottom-up, lazy mergesort. Still.) -- AaronDenney 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? The defining property of quicksort is that the diving phase is elaborate (filter < and >) but that the conquer phase is simple (list concatenation). For mergesort, it's the other way round. apfeλmus 10:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What is this about Haskell being in 2nd place behind C (gcc) in the computer language shootout, the link provided shows it to be 13th (and 12th on the previous benchmark, even though it does proportionally worst). You're right about functional languages doing well though: Clean, OCaml and MLton indeed occupy positions 6,9,11. --Noegenesis 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was in 2nd place when the article was written, since then benchmarks and programs have changed. dons 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Most functional languages, and Haskell in particular, are strongly typed, eliminating a huge class of easy-to-make errors at compile time. This sentence confuses strong and static typing. MichalPalka 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)