> It may not be a race horse, but if you ported those improvements into something like C, you'll have a high-performance rocket. Code that could possibly automatically refactor itself into more efficient, more general components.

From what I can tell, this is actually not the case. Unless what you're talking about is Go. In which case, carry on. ;)

So, don't have all the context... but it sounds like you are implying Haskell libraries can't be a "high-performance rocket" when paired with C whereas Go can? That sound right? Hope so, because it's the assumption my comment below responds to.

What about libraries which take this approach such as bytestring]0], aeson[1], attoparsec[2], and binary[3]?

0: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bytestring

1: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/aeson

2: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/attoparsec

3: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/binary