On 2/24/06, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello kyra, > > Friday, February 24, 2006, 12:37:02 AM, you wrote: > > >> i prefer to see the asm code. this may be because of better high-level > >> optimization strategies (reusing fib values). the scheme about i say > >> will combine advantages of both worlds > k> no strategies, plain exponential algorithm, > > yes, the ocaml compiler works better with stack. but i sure that in > most cases gcc will outperform ocaml because it has large number of > optimizations which is not easy to implement (unrolling, instruction > scheduling and so on) > > k> also, Clean is *EXACTLY* in line with ocaml. This is interesting, > k> because Clean is so much similar to Haskell. > > clean differs from Haskell in support of unique types and strictness > annotations. the last is slowly migrates into GHC in form of shebang > patters, but i think that it is a half-solution. i mentioned in > original letter my proposals to add strictness annotations to > function types declarations and to declare strict datastructures, such > as "![Int]"
As I've understood it, Clean's strictness annotations are a bit of a hack which only works on certain built-in types. Am I mistaking here? -- Friendly, Lemmih _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
