Haskell would be better if...

... it didn't have Nomads.
... it was readable.
... it didn't take 6 hours to compile GHC.
... it had while loops.
... it was the algorithmic language Scheme.

... Simon Peyote-Joints gave me a hand job.

... loeb (fix ((flip liftA3 .) . join (foo . bar . baz)) >>=)

... it had while loops.
... it was the algorithmic language Scheme.
You don't understand the algorithmic language Scheme.

>>1
>... it didn't have Nomads.
All languages have monads; Haskell just makes them explicit.

>... it was readable.
All languages can be unreadable in the wrong hands.

>... it didn't take 6 hours to compile GHC.
Compilers tend to take a while to compile. Have you tried compiling the GNU toolchain?

>... it had while loops.
Not needed; it'd be redundant because Haskell optimizes recursion.

>... it was the algorithmic language Scheme.
As >>4 wrote, "You don't understand the algorithmic language Scheme."

IHBT.

... it was the algorithmic language Scheme.

Agreed.

>>5
This is probably unrelated, but c,c++ toolchain I have for cross-compiling compiled in roughly 2 hours.

>>7
Are you building something like glibc or is your computer just shit?

>>7
Building a cross-compiler is obviously going to be faster since it can't bootstrap itself, so it skips like a third of the normal process.

>>5
>... it didn't have Nomads.
All languages have monads; Haskell just makes them explicit.
Nope, wrong again.

>>7
Taro?

>>11
Leah?

>>12
Patrick?

>>13
James?

>>14
fairX the haxxor?

Sage?

>>16
bampu pantsu~?

>>11-16
[b]Christopher[b]?

>>18
^BBCode mastery is yet unachieved.

Testing.

<-- check em dubz