On Aug 12, 1:30 am, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > Next laziness was thought to be too slow to be practical, and now > someone used ghc in this thread as an example of fast language.
There is a lot of misinformed people (and fanboys who are not misinformed but willing to "exaggerate", putting it charitably) Haskell is a cool language, but its (GHC) performance sucks, until you start practically writing semi-assembly with it (forget laziness and memory safety). Look at the CODE in the Shootout, not the summary. > What is sure is that there is no reason why clojure should be slow, when > some functional languages (including dynamically typed ones) are fast. That's true in some very general sense (if you are not married to a particular VM, which Clojure actually is). For example, my implementation of the N-Body benchmark is right now the fastest pure- functional and non-type declaring one, and it's 53 times slower than Java. On the other hand, Erlang's code is also all of these things, but 8 times faster. In fact, it's faster than Andy's Java-in-Clojure version #8 (which was 10 times slower than Java). P.S. The moderators (Chouser) are now censoring my posts, so if you don't see this message on the list as well, I wrote something they want to suppress. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
