Hi,
thx for this reply.
Is there any overhead using this
mutable?
Are you also using Templates ?
With this mutable I can adapt a lot of software
from Ocamel.
But the gnawing question remains: Shall it be
possible to be almost as efficient (in native code) as Ocamel's code, I refer
here to Doug Bagley's comparison of programming languages. Remarkably the
fibonacci numbers test scores almost as well. But the code is not the same.
Comparable code would have been to use the same code of Ocamel, to be more
specific: how efficiently is recusivity implemented in Haskell. I cannot compare
this on my Windows XP since I need MSVC6.0 on this machine which I don't have.
On the other hand I have cygwin installed now. Unfortunately I can't make
makefiles. Probably on the web I can find an explanation. In this way I can
recompile Ocamel with Cygwin and compare the results a bit.
There are also 5(?) failures of Haskell programms .
Is there a flaw in these programms?
Thx
Scott
P.S. does anyone know a good Haskell IDE for
Windows XP?
|
- mutable records Scott J.
- Re: mutable records Manuel M T Chakravarty
- Re: mutable records Iavor S. Diatchki
- Re: mutable records Scott J.
- Re: mutable records Alastair Reid
- Re: mutable records Scott J.
- Re: mutable records Alastair Reid
- Re: mutable records Shawn P. Garbett
- Re: mutable records Tom Pledger
- Re: mutable records Iavor S. Diatchki
- Re: mutable records Scott J,
- Re: mutable records Jorge Adriano