2007/7/19, Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm trying to understand why System.Directory.copyFile would be preferred. Isn't it implemented in Haskell too? Isn't bytestring (or rather PackedString) IO heavily optimized and on par with C?
Even if a performance comparison is the best thing to do, I think that Kevin's observation is a good one. If there's a standard library function to do X, unless there're good reasons to not use it (e.g. compatibility with old library versions, bad performance), it should be preferred to hand-made solutions. If in GHC 6.x (or maybe y.x) they decide to improve it with a super-fast-hardware-accelerated-sse-mmx-altivec-parallel algorithm, we get the performance for free. Anyway, in GHC 6.6.1, copyFile is implemented in Haskell with raw buffered copy, using hGetBuf / hPutBuf. For the same reason, I think that we should seriously think to switch to ByteStrings. Isn't Darcs PackedString just a "prerelease" version of ByteStrings? They have a pretty similar API. And now (in 6.7) ByteStrings have a super-fast-hardware-accelerated-sse-mmx-altivec-parallel algorithms for stream fusion (more or less ;) ). Salvatore _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
