Thanks, I know <i>what</i> hard realtime means, I just meant I didn&#x27;t have experience with those systems to really debate about them. Do you have practical experience building hard realtime systems?<p>&gt; <i>As an aside, I expect for many things native Scala will equal C++ in performance</i><p>Are you familiar with Haskell performance?<p>&gt; <i>[can Haskell be used for] realtime simulations and games?</i><p>Yes.<p>As I said, I can&#x27;t speak for <i>hard</i> realtime, but then again, most sims and games seldom require it.<p>&gt; <i>GC based languages in general aren&#x27;t good choices for the types of systems discussed above</i>.<p>You seem to be arguing out of theory (which is why I asked you if you were speaking from experience). We&#x27;re also not discussing GC based languages &quot;in general&quot;; we are discussing Haskell, which is a very practical language which can and has been used successfully in a variety of real-world applications, and which qualifies as a general purpose language. If in doubt, talk to an actual Haskell practitioner instead of arguing out of theoretical positions, and you&#x27;ll be surprised. Many such practitioners frequent HN, and I&#x27;m sure they are eager (no pun intended) to discuss the systems they&#x27;ve worked in.<p>For that matter, will Scala Native <i>not</i> be a GC language?<p>&gt; <i>Scala also supports mutable state and the OO paradigm if they are better or more convenient for a particular system.</i><p>As I argued before, in practice this means Scala is not a great language for OOP or FP. It&#x27;s understandable that experienced practitioners of either style will prefer cleaner &amp; better languages.<p>I don&#x27;t predict a particularly great outcome for Scala outside the JVM, since I think the JVM is its main selling point. Once you remove this point, other languages become distractingly attractive :)