I find it really interesting that the idiomatic Haskell implementations (basically math) are the best-performing, while the Rust-like Haskell implementation (using an IORef) is orders of magnitude slower. This is exactly what I want: describe the logic of the operation, and leave the compiler to optimize for the hardware (in this case a CPU which mutates registers). The Rust implementation makes assumptions about the underlying hardware (has registers we can mutate), and is only about 15% faster than the Haskell implementation which makes no such assumptions.

In essence, this is why I love Haskell, and choose it over Rust: it allows me to write my application logic directly, without having to think about it in terms of mutation, and have the generated code be pretty fast. If GHC becomes well-optimized enough it can render Rust obsolete, since "no runtime overhead" becomes pretty meaningless if it's actually slower than Haskell (e.g. using LinearTypes, which removes need for GC). Rust can't render Haskell obsolete, however, since Haskell's goal is basically allowing you to write logic directly, using types as propositions and values as proofs. So Haskell's goal is a qualitative one (execute logic) while Rust's is a quantitative one (performance/no runtime overhead), which results in Haskell being able to take the place of Rust if GHC gains sufficiently in performance.