1. Using the "You are not Google" argument is a blatant disregard for the facts. If you've done the math, you would see that using tries and ternary trees often lose performance at 60,000+ elements, and this is even ignoring cache invalidation that often occurs in jumping through nodes. I'm sorry, but you are the one who sounds like you've never had a dataset bigger than 10 elements.
And speaking of Google, have you ever heard of this?
2. The point is that lazy evaluation has More problems than strict. Not less. If you read the comments you will see that Dons actually agreed with me after arguing the contrary. Even Simon Peyton Jones believes that "the next Haskell should be strict".
3. LGPL is a problem for many companies. If you don't really care about it, good for you. You are in the minority.
In conclusion, I thought that Hacker News would be immune from Haskell group think, but I was unfortunately wrong.
And speaking of Google, have you ever heard of this?
http://code.google.com/p/google-sparsehash/
2. The point is that lazy evaluation has More problems than strict. Not less. If you read the comments you will see that Dons actually agreed with me after arguing the contrary. Even Simon Peyton Jones believes that "the next Haskell should be strict".
3. LGPL is a problem for many companies. If you don't really care about it, good for you. You are in the minority.
In conclusion, I thought that Hacker News would be immune from Haskell group think, but I was unfortunately wrong.